IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-2906 of 2010 Date of Decision: February 04, 2010 Jatinder Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Kaur Singh .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Ms. Shelly Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing complaint case No.124 dated 24.7.2007 (Annexure P-1) titled `Kaur Singh vs. Jatinder Singh’ under Section 3 (i)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 323, 500, 506 IPC pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala. It transpires that after considering preliminary evidence, the petitioner has been summoned to stand trial vide Order dated 23.5.2009 (Annexure P-2). Crl. Misc. No. M-2906 of 2010 [2] Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since both the sides are living in the same village and in the same vicinity, with the intervention of respectable, all the issues have been settled by way of compromise. Compromise deed has been executed which is placed on record as Annexure P-3. Notice of motion. At this stage, Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Advocate, has put in appearance for the complainant-respondent, and an affidavit sworn on 4.2.2010 by Kaur Singh (respondent) has also been filed. Affidavit is taken on record. In the affidavit sworn by respondent, Kaur Singh, who is present in Court, as identified by his counsel Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Advocate, factum of compromise has been endorsed and it has been clearly stated that the respondent would have no objection if the complaint and summoning order are quashed. I have considered the issue. Considering the fact that it is a complaint case; respondent-complainant has appeared in Court as identified by his counsel and does not want to prosecute the petitioner; Kaur Singh is the victim and only relevant witness, it would be abuse of process of Court if Crl. Misc. No. M-2906 of 2010 [3] proceedings are allowed to continue against the petitioner, the petition is allowed. Complaint case No.124 dated 24.7.2007 (Annexure P-1) and summoning order dated 23.5.2009 (Annexure P-2) are hereby quashed. (AJAI LAMBA) February 04, 2010 JUDGE avin