Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Ravi Malik, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana., Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Jain, J. (Oral) -

By way of present petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No.325 dated 08.11.2023 registered under Section 420 (Sections 467/468/471/201 IPC added lateron), at Police Station Barara Ambala, District Ambala, Haryana and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.

2. On 16.12.2023, the following order was passed:

'The present petition has been moved invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C by the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No.325 dated 08.11.2023, registered for offence punishable under Section 420 IPC (Sections 467/468/471/201 IPC added later on), at Police Station Barara, Ambala, District Ambala, Haryana.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the matter already stands compromised vide Annexure P-2.

Notice of motion for 03.04.2024.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Mr. M.S.Rana, Advocate & Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.2 & 3 respectively and admit the fact of there being a compromise between the parties.

In view of the above, both the parties are directed to appear before learned Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court on 29.01.2024. On their doing so, the learned Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court shall record their statements and furnish its report to this Court by the next date of hearing on the following aspects:-

A copy of the report be also sent to the Registrar Judicial of this Court.

Needless to say that in case for any reason the statements are not recorded on the aforesaid date, the learned Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court shall be at liberty to call the parties on any other date but not later than a week thereafter.'

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 01.02.2024 from Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambala has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:-

'1 have the honour to refer to the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 16.12.2023, passed by Hon'ble High Court in CRM-M-63376-2023 titled as "Milanjot Singh @ Milan @ Mani Versus State of Haryana & Ors.", whereby the parties were directed to appear before the Ld. Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court on 29.01.2024, for recording their statements. Complainant Tej Pal & Ankita as well as accused/respondent Milanjot Singh @ Milan @ Mani have come present today i.e. 29.01.2024 in the court. Their separate statements to the effect that they have compromised the matter with each other voluntarily without any coercion or undue influence, pressure etc. from any side have been recorded. Statement of ASI Irshad Ali No.138, PS Barara, District Ambala, has also been record to the effect that on the complaint of complainant Tej Pal, present FIR was registered against accused Milanjot Singh @ Milan @ Mani and except the present case, no other case is pending/registered against him. There is no other accused in the present case. Neither the accused has ever been declared as proclaimed offender, nor such proceedings are pending against him. There is only one complainant in present case namely Tej Pal son of Ram Swroop. There is no other victim in present case.

As such, from statements of the parties, I am of the opinion that the compromise arrived between the complainant and the aforesaid accused is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence. Report in the matter along-with original statements, photo-state copies of Aadhar-cards of the parties and photo copy of compromise Mark-A are enclosed here-with for consideration of the Hon'ble High Court, please.'

4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 admits the fact of parties having compromised and states that he has no objection in case the FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto against the petitioner is quashed.

5. Similarly, learned State counsel ha