Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral) - The matrix of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that initially, in the wake of statement of complainant Sarika Chaudhary d/o Om Parkash Verma (respondent No.2) (for brevity “the complainant”), a criminal case was registered against petitioners-accused, Arun son of Amar Chand and others, vide FIR No.915 dated 22.12.2013 (Annexure P1) on accusation of having committed the offences punishable u/ss 376, 494, 356, 379, 323 and 506 read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Sector 7, Faridabad.

2. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report (challan) against the petitioners-accused to face the trial of indicated offences in the trial Court.

3. During the pendency of the criminal case, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their disputes, by means of compromise deed dated 9.1.2014 (Annexure P-2).

4. Having compromised the matter, the petitioners-accused have preferred the present petition, to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia, pleading that the complainant was residing with Arun Kumar (petitioner No.1) as his wife for the last more than two years prior to the present occurrence. Earlier, they have love affairs and were residing in live-in-relationship. Subsequently, they have performed their marriage on 13.3.2013 at Arya Samaj Mandir. After solemnization of the marriage, they resided together as husband & wife and cohabited as such. It was claimed that as soon as, father and relatives of petitioner No.1 came to know about their relations, then, they raised objection in this regard. They started interfering in their personal (matrimonial) life, perpetuating some misunderstanding between them. Consequently, the complainant has lodged the instant criminal case against the petitioners-accused, vide impugned FIR (Annexure P1) in the indicated manner.

5. Now with the intervention of respectables and relatives, the parties have amicably settled their disputes, by means of indicated compromise deed (Annexure P2). They have redressed their grievances and have no grudge against each other. Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 have no objection in case the complainant lives with petitioner No.1 as his wife. The settlement is stated to be in welfare, benefit and larger interest of the parties. The learned counsel for parties are ad idem that now the complainant is residing with Arun Kumar (petitioner No.1) as his wife in her matrimonial home. The complainant has no objection in case, the criminal case registered against the petitioners, by virtue of impugned FIR is quashed. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, they sought to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto in the manner depicted here-in-above.

6. During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties, with regard to the genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise deed (Annexure P-2) between them, by way of order dated 11.3.2014 by a Coordinate Bench (Mahavir S.Chauhan, J.) of this Court.

7. In compliance thereof, the trial Court, having recorded the statements of all the concerned parties, has reported, vide its report dated 4.4.2014 that the compromise is voluntarily, genuine and without any pressure or coercion.

8. In this manner, once it stands proved on record that the complainant has performed the marriage and now she is residing with petitioner No.1 as his wife in her matrimonial home, then, no offence punishable u/s 376 IPC is made out against the accused, in view of ratio of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in cases Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi, [2013(4) Law Herald (SC