Continuation of proceedings for a compromised matter can be an abuse of the court's process.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

1. Petitioners Rajesh Kumar, Savita Rani, Sandeep Kumar and Lakshmi Narain alias Lachhman Dass have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 739 dated 27.12.1993 under Sections 452, 148, 149, 427 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station City Hisar, challan dated 2.9.1994 under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the aforesaid FIR was registered in the year 1993 on the basis of the written complaint dated 27.12.1993 made by complainant Ishwar Dass Jain. In the complaint, it was alleged that the complainant was residing in a rented house situated in Gali Chhabil Dass, Hisar for the last 30 years. It was further alleged that for the last 2-3 days, he was not feeling well, therefore, he went to the house of his son after locking his house. It was further alleged that today one Ram Niwas son of Banarsi Dass told him that one Sajjan Kumar accompanied by some other persons entered his house forcibly and tried to take out the luggage from his house. When he reached to the house, he found that Sajjan Kumar and 4-5 other persons were taking out the luggage from his house. Then he made the aforesaid complaint in which it was also alleged that Sajjan Kumar had also threatened to kill him. Subsequently on 16.1.1994, the complainant made an application to the police stating therein that with the intervention of the Panchayat, the matter was settled between the parties and a compromise was effected. According to the said compromise, the complainant had received adequate compensation and vacated the rented house. It was also stated in the compromise that whatsoever grouse the complainant was having, was removed by the Panchayat, therefore, the complainant did not want to pursue the aforesaid FIR.

3. In the petition, it was alleged that in view of the aforesaid compromise, the police submitted the cancellation report on 23.4.1994, but subsequently on 2.9.1994, the police submitted the challan only against the petitioners and not against the main accused Sajjan Kumar. While referring to the copies of the agreement (Annexure P1) and the challan (Annexure P2), learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the challan, it has been specifically stated that the police on the basis of the agreement arrived at between the complainant, the accused and the aforesaid Sajjan Kumar, submitted the cancellation report, but it was been stated that as suggested by the DDA and the advice of the officers, the challan was filed. Nothing has been mentioned in the challan why DDA suggested filing of the challan in this case, particularly when by a written agreement the dispute was compromised between the parties. I have been informed that during the pendency of this petition the complainant has expired on 14.10.2001.

4. I have heard the counsel for the parties.

5. Counsel for the respondents have not controverted the aforesaid factual position but while referring to the decisions rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in State of Bihar and another etc. etc. v. Shri P.P. Sharma and another etc. etc., 1991(2) SCT 397 (SC) : AIR 1991 SC 1260 and Vineet Narain and others v. Union of India and another, AIR 1996 SC 3386, submitted that since the challan has been filed in this case by the police after the investigation, therefore, at this stage, the FIR should not be quashed.

6. I am not inclined to accept the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case. Undisputedly, after few days of the alleged occurrence, the complainant made a written application to the police about the compromise arrived at between the parties. A copy of the compromise has also been placed on the record. According to the said compromise, the complainant after receiving some compensation, had vacated the rented house. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, cancellation report was