ORDER

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

for quashment of the FIR bearing Crime No.705/2011 dated 24.12.2011 registered at Police Station Aerodrum, District Indore under Section 323, 294, 506, 354/34 of IPC and subsequent proceedings pending before the Court below.

Facts of the case, on 24.12.2011 complainant Bhawna Thakur lodged First Information against the accused Rajeev and Raghuraj and mentioned that, complainant and her husband are living separately from the petitioners who are her brother-in-law and father-in-law respectively. On 24.12.2011 complainant lodged a report at Police Station, Aerodrum that on 23.12.2011 at about 10.45 AM, she has gone to fetch water from the tubewell. Then the petitioner have raised the objection that the respondent No.2 and her husband have not paid the rent. When her husband has gone to pay the rent to the petitioners, the petitioner have beaten her husband, then both the petitioner have torned her clothes and outrage her modesty. On this basis, an offence under Sections 323, 294, 506, 354/34 of I.P.C. has been registered against the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned registration of First Information Report dated 24.12.2011 is contrary to law and facts on record and it deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that the impugned First Information Report itself shows that the accused is not involved in any crime. It is further submitted that the applicants/accused are relatives of the complainant and the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant and applicants/accused belongs to same family and the applicants/accused and complainant entered in to compromise and settled their matter and resolve the dispute. It is submitted that the application for compromise under Section 320(2) has been filed in the learned trial Court and trial Court has ordered that the applicants/accused was acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 323,294,506 of I.P.C., but the learned trial continue to proceed the trial for the offence punishable under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is further submitted that the applicants/accused came before this Hon'ble High Court on the ground that, the accused and complainant both belong to same family and they resolved their dispute, hence, prays for quashment of the FIR as well as the subsequent proceedings.

O n the other hand, counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer by submitting that the petitions have committed heinous crime and the learned offence under Section 354 of IPC is non-compoundable.

Counsel for respondent no.2/complainant has submitted that the complainant has compromised the case with the petitioners and she has no objection if the petition is allowed.

I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.

From the face of record, it is crystal clear that both the parties have compromised the case and the learned Court below has acquitted the petitioners from the charges under Sections 323,294,506 of I.P.C. and continued the trial only under Section 354 of IPC being non-compoundable, but in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, in the interest of justice, the petition is allowed and the FIR bearing Crime No.705/2011 dated 24.12.2011 registered at Police Station Aerodrum, District Indore and subsequent proceedings pending before the Court below.

A copy of this order be sent to the court below concerned.

Certified copy, as per rules.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)) JUDGE amit