USHA KIRAN Vs. THE STATE U.T. CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. had lodged the first information report No. 263 of 1988 at Police Station Central Chandigarh against his wife Usha Kiran, petitioner No. 1 and Satish John respondent No. 2, alleging that they had attempted to commit house trespass after preparing to cause hurt to him and they have tried to intimidate him. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was put in the Court and the case is now pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh. The petitioners have filed his petition for quashing the first information report and the resultant proceedings pending in the trial Court.

(2.) NOTICE of this petition had been given to the respondents. They have not filed any reply in this case. Mr. C.B. Kakkar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 who has put in appearance today has stated that he does not want to file andy reply as the parties have effected a compromise.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that in view of the compromise between the parties, respondent No. 2 (complainant) will not pursue the case in the trial Court nor will he produce any evidence in support of the allegations against the petitioners. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has conceded the factual submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners' learned counsel has, therefore, urged that this Court, in exercise of its extra-ordinary powers under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is competent to quash the proceedings in the trial Court by allowing the compounding of the offence under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. In support of his contention, he has relied upon Gurdeep Singh and others v. Smt. Ginni, 1991(3) Recent Criminal Reports 349. In Gurdeep Singh's case (supra) also the parties had effect a compromise in respect of the first information report registered under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. This Court held that offence though not compoundable yet the prosecution was bound to end in smoke as the complainant would not support the allegations. The ratio of this judgment appears to have a direct bearing on the facts of the instant case. Since learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has conceded that his client is not likely to prosecute the allegations levelled against the petitioners made in the first information report, the case in the trial Court will end in smoke. Relying on Gurdeep Singh's case (supra), the petitioners are allowed to compound the offence under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code.