IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-4725 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: September 28, 2011 Rahul Bhardwaj & another .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. R.S. Sihota, Senior Advocate, with Mr. B.R. Rana, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. K.D.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. Hemender Goswami, Advocate, for respondent No.2. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. prays for quashing FIR No.52 dated 28.2.2010 under Sections 342, 343, 384, 420, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station, Division No.7 (Vardhman), Ludhiana city, on the basis of compromise recorded during Mediation and placed on record as Annexure P-3. 2. It is a very unfortunate litigation between mother, Crl. Misc. No. M-4725 of 2011 [2] Sudesh Bhardwaj (respondent No.2) and her son Rahul Bhardwaj (petitioner No.1) and daughter-in-law Sarita Bhardwaj (petitioner No.2). It appears that dispute was referred for mediation. A compromise/ agreement was executed which has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. 3. Respondent No.2, Sudesh Bhardwaj is present in Court and states that the petitioners have been misbehaving with her to an extent that she has been given beatings. The terms and conditions of the compromise have not been complied with. Although possession of Ground Floor has been given, however, the goods have been removed. 4. It has also been stated on behalf of the respondent- complainant that harassment is of the nature that key to the main door is not given. The persons, who come to visit respondent No.2, are not allowed to visit and therefore, her life has been made very inconvenient. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has also pointed out that the disputes have not been settled by way of compromise and grievance of respondent No.2 is still alive. 6. Considering the stand of the old lady (respondent No.2) and her predicament as noted above, I do not find any reason to quash the FIR and proceedings on the basis of compromise. 7. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) September 28, 2011 JUDGE avin Crl. Misc. No. M-4725 of 2011 [3] 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?