Criminal Misc. No.47212-M of 2006 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Criminal Misc. No.47212-M of 2006 Date of decision : 2.9.2008 Binder Singh and another .....Petitioners Versus Darshan Singh and another ...Respondents 2. Criminal Misc. No.48826-M of 2006 Darshan Singh .....Petitioner Versus Binder Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: None for the petitioners. Ms. Manjari Nehru, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondent-State. S. D. ANAND, J. Respondent no.1 filed a ( private) complaint under Section 323 and 506 IPC and Section 3/8 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on an allegation that petitioners committed the relevant offence on 2.4.2006 when he called upon them to pay the stitching charges. Apart from the utterances constituting violation of the Act, the petitioners were also alleged to have caused hurt to respondent no.1 and also held out a threat to him. The petitioners made a presentation to the learned Magistrate that offences have been compounded. Compromise deed was also filed, Criminal Misc. No.47212-M of 2006 -2- **** along with an affidavit furnished by respondent no. 1 (in Criminal Misc. No. 47212-M of 2006). Learned Trial Magistrate did not, however, accept the plea of compounding. In the present petition, the petitioner has applied for quashing of impugned complaint dated 5.4.2006 and also summoning order dated 10.6.2006 (Annexures P/1 and P/2 respectively) on plea of compounding. Inspite of the fact that respondent no.1/complainant entered appearance through a learned counsel in the year 2006, no counter has come to be filed. It follows therefrom that the averment on point of compounding of offences is not contested on behalf of respondent no.1/complainant. In view, thus, of the fact that the plea of compounding is uncontroverted, it would be inequitable to allow respondent no.1 to prosecute the impugned (private) complaint pending in the Court of learned Trial Magistrate. The continuation of the proceedings before the learned Trial Magistrate would be an abuse of the process of the Court. The petition shall stand allowed. The impugned complaint dated 5.4.2006 (Annexure P-1) and summoning order dated 10.6.2006 (Annexure P-2) shall stand set aside. The stay order dated 20.11.2006 shall stand vacated. The vacation of stay order shall be communicated to the Court concerned forthwith. September 02, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE