KARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, the Code), petitioners seek quashing of Criminal Complaint No.169/1 of 2009 filed by the complainant/respondent No.2, arraigning the present petitioners as accused therein, summoning order dated 30.11.2011 (Annexure P -4) and all other proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) IN the criminal complaint, Annexure P -3, it was alleged by complainant/respondent No.2 that the petitioners had an evil eye on the land of Dharamshala of Balmiki Community and wanted to amalgamate it into the site meant for construction of water tank. On 02.08.2006 at about 11:30 a.m., the petitioners were alleged to have forcibly tress -passed into the land of Dharamshala and, even, demolished the wall of the same with the help of a tractor trolly. They also picked up bricks from the spot. When the complaint/respondent No.2 tried to intervene, he was threatened by the petitioners. Even modesty of complainant's wife was tried to be outraged. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, the petitioners have been summoned to face trial, vide order dated 30.11.2011 (Annexure P -4), passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nakodar. Now, as per deed of compromise (Annexure P -6), with the intervention of the respectables of the society, the parties to the litigation have resolved to live in peace and tranquility. During the pendency of the petition, petitioners have placed on record compromise deed dated 22.01.2014 (Annexure P -6). While taking on record said compromise deed, vide order dated 27.01.2014, the trial Court was asked to record statements of the parties concerned to find out if the compromise is outcome of free will and consent of the parties and is free from any undue influence/pressure/coercion. The trial Court has submitted a report dated 15.02.2014 affirming that the compromise is outcome of free will and consent of the parties and is free from any undue influence/pressure/coercion.

(3.) COMPLAINANT /respondent No.2 has been duly served. He even appeared earlier before this Court but has chosen not to come present today.