Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Ravi Malik, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Praveen Bhadu, AAG, Haiyana assisted by ASI Naresh Kumar. Mr. Mohan Singh Rana, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Mahabir Singh Sindhu, J.

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.290 dated 20.08.2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC'\ at Police Station, Israna, District Panipat (P-1) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties i.e. petitioner as well as respondent No.2. Status report dated 06.05.2024 by way of affidavit of Sh. Dharamvir Singh, HPS DSP, HQ, Panipat filed on behalf of respondent-State is taken on record. Registry to tag the same at appropriate place.

2. Petitioner is alleged to have prepared one forged Will on 25.01.2020.

3. This Court, while issuing notice of motion, on 25.04.2024, passed the following order:-

"Contends that matter has been compromised between the parties i.e. petitioner as well as respondent No.2.

(2) Notice of motion.

(3) On asking of the Court, Mr. Kiran Pal Singh, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1/State.

(4) Mr. Mohan Singh Rana, Advocate, who is present in the Court, has filed Power of Attorney on behalf of respondent No.2. The same is taken on record. He acknowledged the factum of compromise dated 20.03.2024 (P-2) arrived at between the parties at their own level.

(5) Requisite number of copies of the petition be supplied to learned Counsel for the respondents during the course of day.

(6) Petitioner shall file an affidavit that there is no other criminal case(s) pending against him and also give the details of any other FIR(s), already quashed on the basis of compromise.

(7) In view of the above, let parties appear before the Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court on 03.05.2024 for recording their statement(s) with reference to the compromise, if any, entered into between them.

(8) Learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court shall record the statement(s) of all accused, complainant/injured and victim, if any, and submit a report to this Court before the next date of hearing containing the following information:-

(i). Whether the statements of the parties are bona fide and not result of any pressure or coercion etc. in any manner?

(ii). Whether the compromise effected between the parties is genuine and valid?

(iii). Whether all the accused, complainant and injured are party to the compromise and if not, the details/particulars of such person(s)?

(iv). Whether any other case is pending against either of the parties or not, if yes, the details thereof?

(v). Whether any of the persons involved in this case/dispute has been declared a proclaimed offender?

(vi). Whether any of the petitioner(s) is/are previous convict or not?

(9) List before this Court on 13.05.2024 for further consideration.

(10) Meanwhile, learned State Counsel shall also get the instructions in the matter as to whether the State has any objection?

(11) Copy of this order be sent to learned Judicial Officer concerned forthwith for information and strict compliance"

4. In terms of aforesaid order, the statements of both the parties were recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panipat and submitted a report dated 07.05.2024. The operative part of the same reads as under:-

"2. Accordingly, statements of complainant namely Seema and accused namely Naveen have been recorded on 30.04.2024 in presence of undersigned after duly identifying them through their Aadhaar Cards, photographs as well as by their counsels. Further, the report was filed by Investigating officer on 07.05.2024. Accordingly, the pointwise report is as follows:-

5. A perusal of the aforesaid report clearly reveals that the matter has been compromised by both the parties with their free consent, voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence. Even before this Court also, there is no objection by either of the parties against the compromise.

6. Learned State Counsel, on instructions from the police official present in the Court, also submitted that they have no objec