AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.S. Kumaran, J. (Oral)
The State of Punjab has not filed any reply despite opportunity. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent, who is the complainant, has filed a reply. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent states that the 2nd respondent has no objection if the proceedings and FIR are quashed in view of the compromise between him and the petitioners. The compromise has also been produced as Annexure P2 wherein the Ist petitioner herein shown as the first party and the complainant2nd respondent has been shown as the second party. In the compromise also, the second respondent has agreed to drop the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. The offence with regard to which the FIR has been registered, is also under Section 407 IPC which is also compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. In view of the compromise, it is also not likely that the 2nd respondent, in the case there is a prosecution, will support the case of the prosecution and the prosecution will be an exercise in futility which would result in unnecessary wastage of court time.
Therefore, after taking into consideration these aspects, I am of the view that the FIR in question, namely, FIR No. 29 dated 24.8.1996 of P.S. City Phagwara should be quashed and accordingly, the same is quashed. Petition is allowed. Further proceedings in pursuance of the FIR, if any, are also quashed.
Copy of this order be given dasti on payment.