PARMOD KUMAR NARANG Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for brevity, the Code), petitioners, the accused, in First Information Report (for short, FIR) No. 80 dated 22.8.2011 under Sections 420, 506, 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC), recorded at Police Station Jamalpur, District Ludhiana, seek quashing of the above FIR saying that the matter has been amicably settled between them and the complainant/ victim(s) as evidenced by the deed of compromise dated 12.9.2013( Annexure P2).

(2.) FIR was recorded on the written complaint of respondent No.2 and it was alleged therein that the parties have business dealings with each other. The petitioners had agreed to sell to respondent No.2 a wooden lot but after receipt of Rs. 1,73,91,790/ - as advance, the petitioner started dilly dallying the matter and it came out that the wooden lot did not belong to them. Now under the compromise, claim of the respondent No.2 has been satisfied.

(3.) WHILE issuing notice of motion, the Illaqa Magistrate 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 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, has submitted a report dated 28.10.2013 affirming that the compromise is outcome of free will and consent of the parties and is free from any undue influence/pressure/coercion. The Complainant and the State counsel have no objection if the FIR and proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. Impressing upon the courts to promote settlements in matrimonial cases, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Ors. Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and Anr., 2013 4 AD(SC) 59 (decided On: 15.03.2013), ruled as under: