SANT RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred to as 'Cr.PC') has been filed by petitioners-accused Sant Ram and Nikki Devi, on the basis of compromise arrived at between them and complainant-respondent No. 4 Neelam Kumari, for quashing FIR No. 157 of 2013, dated 10.9.2013, under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as 'IPC'), registered at Police Station Sadar, Shimla, H.P. and criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto.

(2.) Petitioners Sant Ram and Nikki Devi and complainant-respondent No. 4 Neelam Kumari, are present in person and have been duly identified by their respective counsels. Their statements on oath have also been recorded. Petitioners Sant Ram and Nikki Devi are parents-in-law of complainant-Respondent No. 4 Neemal Kumari.

(3.) Respondent No. 4-complainat in her statement has deposed that petitioners are her parents-in-law and she had lodged FIR against them after the incident, which had occurred on account of misunderstanding and after lodging of the FIR, misunderstanding stands removed and thereafter all of them are residing under one roof and cooking meals in one kitchen and she and her mother-in-law petitioner No. 2 used to cook meals collectively and sometimes individually as per availability of each one and after lodging the FIR, no such untoward incident has occurred and now initiation and continuation of Criminal Proceedings against her parents-in-law, who are residing with her will definitely ruin their family life and will result into breakage of the family. She has further deposed that they are now living with peace and harmony, having cordial relations with each other and therefore, in order to save the family and to continue good relations and healthy atmosphere of the family, she is not interested to continue the Criminal Proceedings against her father-in-law and mother-in-law and therefore, she intends to withdraw the complaint lodged by her. She has further stated that compromise has also been reduced into writing, placed on record as Annexure P-2, whereupon she and her father-in-law have put signatures, whereas her mother-in-law has put her thumb impression. She has further stated that she has signed the compromise and deposed in the Court out of her free will, consent and without any coercion, threat or pressure of any kind.