SHIVEN SAREEN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.' - for short) praying for quashing case FIR No. 156 dated 23.7.2007 (Annexure -P.1) registered at Police Station, Model Town, Hoshiarpur for the offences under Section 354, 452, 323, 506 and 34 Indian Penal Code on the basis of compromise dated 14.2.2008 (Annexure -P.2).

(2.) THE FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Mandeep Kaur (respondent No. 2). It is alleged that a year earlier to the registration of the FIR which was registered on 23.7.2007, she was taking Chemistry tuition from Dr. Vinod Sareen. The petitioner -son of Dr. Vinod Sareen used to keep an evil eye on her. She had warned him also once or twice. On 23.7.2007, at about 5.15 p.m. in the evening she along with Harbhajan Kaur, who does household chores in their house, were present in their house. The main gate of the house was open. Then Shiven (petitioner) and his friend entered the house forcibly. Shiven (petitioner) started teasing the complainant with an evil intention. When she tried to escape, he gave fist blows on her face and eyes. On account of fist blows, the complainant suffered injuries on her face. On hearing her cries, their driver Malkit Singh came. He and Harbhajan Kaur had witnessed the occurrence and they saved the complainant from the petitioner and his friend. The petitioner and Bholu fled from the spot while giving threats to kill her. When the complainant side chased them then they saw that outside the gate one more young man was waiting for them on a motorcycle and he fled away on his motorcycle. It was requested that legal action be taken.

(3.) NOW the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. In terms of the compromise dated 14.2.2008 (Annexure -P.2) it is stated that due to misunderstanding Mandeep Kaur (respondent No. 2) got recorded the FIR against the petitioner. Now in the presence of respectables both the parties have settled the matter and in future the parties want to live peacefully. The first party i.e. respondent No.2 has no objection if the FIR is cancelled or quashed.