# Basant Lal & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 2 ILRA 557
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-11-10
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.2998 of 2007
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/basant-lal-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47543
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law-FIR
lodged-Police
enquired-no persons as to description of
the
complainant
could
be
find-no
appearance of complainant before the
High Court -neither any application for
stay vacation-complaint bogus-abuse of
process
of
law-complainant
has
no
interest in pursuing his complainantproceeding quashed.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

2 All. Basant Lal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
557
conclusion that allowing the proceeding to
continue would be an abuse of the process
of the Court or that the ends of justice
require that the proceeding ought to be
quashed. The High Courts have been
invested with inherent power, both in civil
and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary
public purposes. A Court proceeding ought
not to be permitted to degenerate into a
weapon of harassment or persecution. The
Court observed in this case that ends of
justice are higher than the ends of mere
law though justice must be administered
according to laws made by the legislature."

24. In view of the aforesaid facts and
the legal position, this Court is satisfied that
allowing the proceedings to continue would
be an abuse of the process of the court and
the ends of justice require that the
proceedings ought to be quashed. In the light
of sub clause 30.3 and 30.4 of Rajiv Thapar
(supra), the application under Section 482
Criminal Procedure Code deserves to be
allowed. Accordingly, the present application
under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code
is allowed. The entire proceedings of
Complaint Case No. 419 of 2006 under
Section 420, 506 IPC at Police Station Civil
Lines, District Moradabad pending in the
Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Moradabad, Court No. 2 are hereby quashed.
----------
(2022)02ILR A557
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.2998 of 2007

Basant Lal & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Dinesh Kumar Yadav, Sri Dharmendra
Singhal, Sri Madhukar Maurya

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

(A)
Criminal
Law-FIR
lodged-Police
enquired-no persons as to description of
the
complainant
could
be
find-no
appearance of complainant before the
High Court -neither any application for
stay vacation-complaint bogus-abuse of
process
of
law-complainant
has
no
interest in pursuing his complainantproceeding quashed.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Geo Varghese Vs St. of Raj., 2021 SCC Online
SC 873

2. St. of Karnataka Vs L. Muniswamy

3. Pankaj Kumar Vs St. of Mah., (2008) 16 SCC
117

4. Rajiv Thapar Vs Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3
SCC 330

5. Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC
335

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Madhukar Maurya,
Advocate, holding brief of Sri Dinesh
Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the applicants
and Sri Pankaj Srivastava and Shri Rakesh
Chandra Srivastava, learned Additional
Government Advocates appearing for the
State and perused the record.

2. By means of the instant application
under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure the applicants have prayed for
quashing of the complaint lodged as
558 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Complaint Case No. 1015 of 2006 titled
Raju Vs. Basant Lal and others, pending in
the Court of learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Aligarh, under
Sections 323, 452, 427, 504 and 506 of the
Indian Penal Code and all consequential
proceedings thereon.

3. On 05-07-2006, one Raju son of
Shri
Ramdeen,
resident
of
Mohalla
Bhagwan Nagar, Police Station Sasni Gate,
District
Aligarh
lodged
a
complaint
alleging that he is a trader of readymade
garments and so are the applicants. The
complainant and the applicants are known
to each other and they have been trading
the goods from each other. On 02-07-2006
all the three applicants went to the
complainant's house and demanded goods
worth
Rs.20,000/-.
The
complainant
declined their request and demanded
payment of Rs.10,000/- already due from
the applicants, upon which the applicants
got angry, abused and assaulted him, torn
his clothes, broken household goods and
caused financial loss of about Rs.5,000/- to
Rs.6000/-. Statements of witnesses were
recorded under Section 202 of Code of
Criminal Procedure and thereafter the
summoning order was passed on 16-092006.

4. The applicants gave an application
dated 27-11-2006 (a copy whereof has been
annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the affidavit
filed in support of the Application under
Section 482) to the District Magistrate,
Aligarh stating that the applicant no. 3
Pradeep Kumar is in service of the Postal
Department of the Government of India
since the year 1995 and he is residing at
New Delhi, the applicant no. 2 Satish
Kumar is doing private job and the
applicant no.1 also works as an agent. All
of them reside at New Delhi and they have
never had any relation with Aligarh. Raju
son of Ramdeen, Dharamveer son of Pyare
Singh and Ram Babu son of Sita Ram, all
residents of Aligarh, are hatching a
conspiracy for entangling the applicants in
false cases. None of the applicants are
clothes
merchants.
Earlier
also,
an
Advocate had sent a notice from Ghaziabad
in an attempt to entangle the applicants in a
false case. The applicants had sent a reply
to the aforesaid notice and upon an inquiry
held by the police, it was found that the
name and address of the complainant was
fictitious. One Chetan Prakash, a neighbour
of the applicants has prepared forged
documents of the house of the applicant no.
3 and on the basis thereof he has taken a
loan in connivance with certain bank
officers. Chetan Prakash is a proclaimed
offender and upon coming to known about
these facts the applicants have filed F.I.R.
No. 153 of 2003, under Sections 420, 468,
471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and
F.I.R. No. 125 of 2003, under Sections 420
and 193 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The aforesaid Chetan Prakash, his
wife Uma, brother Vipin Prakash and their
associates are pressurizing the applicants in
several ways and on the applicants'
complaint F.I.R. No. 92 of 2005, under
Section 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code
has
been
registered.
As
the
conspiracy
hatched
by
the
aforesaid
persons failed in Delhi, they hatched
another conspiracy to teach a lesson to the
applicants in Uttar Pradesh. In this regard
the applicants have given complaints to the
police authorities in Ghaziabad and Noida
as well as to the Director General of Police,
Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. By means of the
aforesaid
application
the
applicants
requested the District Magistrate to get a
thorough inquiry conducted against Raju
resident
of
Bhagwan
Nagar
and
2 All. Basant Lal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
559
Dharamveer and Ram Babu residents of
Jaiganj. They further stated that in case in
the inquiry the applicants are found guilty
they will accept whatever punishment
would be inflicted upon them.

6. Upon the aforesaid application dated
27-11-2006, an inquiry was conducted by the
police and a report was submitted to the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh
stating that upon inquiry no person by the
description of Raju son of Ramdeen, resident
of Bhagwan Nagar as well as the other two
persons mentioned by the applicants in the
complaint was found and it was reported that
there was no need of any police action.

7. The applicants have challenged the
complaint and the summoning order on the
ground that the complaint is bogus and it was
filed with a view to achieve ulterior motive
and it is an abuse of the process of court and,
therefore, it deserves to be quashed.

8. On 14-02-2007 an interim order was
passed
in
this
case
staying
further
proceedings of the Complaint Case and a
notice was ordered to be issued to the
complainant / opposite party no. 2 enabling
him to file a counter affidavit within a period
of six weeks and the learned AGA was also
given an opportunity to file a counter
affidavit within a same period.

9. The notice was sent to the
complainant/opposite party no.2 through
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, who
has sent a report dated 04-06-07 stating that
no person of the description "Raju son of
Ramdeen, resident of Bhagwan Nagar,
Police Station, Sasni Gate, Aligarh" could
be found.

10. Sri Madhukar Maurya Advocate
has submitted that even though the notice
could not be served on the complainant -
opposite
party
no.
2,
the
stay
of
proceedings of the complaint case would
surely amount to notice of the present
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Had
the complainant been genuinely interested
in pursuing the complaint, he would have
come to know about the present application
when the proceedings of the complaint got
stayed.
However,
in
spite
of
the
proceedings
of
the
complaint
case
remaining stayed since as far as back as 1402-2007, neither the opposite party no.2
complainant has put in appearance in the
case nor has he filed any application for
vacation of the interim order or a counter
affidavit disputing the correctness of the
averments made in the application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. as well as the affidavit
filed in its support and the same remain
uncontroverted. The learned counsel for the
applicants has submitted that this conduct
of the complainant/opposite party no.2
fortifies his contention that the complaint is
false and bogus and the proceedings
initiated by the complainant amount to an
abuse of the process of law for harassing
the applicants.

11. The scope of interference by the
High Courts in proceedings under Section
482, Cr.P.C. has been succinctly laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335, in the following words: -

"102. In the backdrop of the
interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV
and of the principles of law enunciated by
this Court in a series of decisions relating
to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or the inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code which we
have extracted and reproduced above, we
560 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
give the following categories of cases by
way of illustration wherein such power
could be exercised either to prevent abuse
of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice, though it may
not be possible to lay down any precise,
clearly defined and sufficiently channelised
and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae
and to give an exhaustive list of myriad
kinds of cases wherein such power should
be exercised:

(1) Where the allegations made in
the
first
information
report
or
the
complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do
not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the
first information report and other materials,
if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted
allegations made in the FIR or complaint
and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of
any offence and make out a case against the
accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the
FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence
but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section
155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in
the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express
legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions
of the Code or the Act concerned (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted)
to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the Act concerned,
providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding
is manifestly attended with mala fide
and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge."

12. In Vineet Kumar versus State of
U.P. reported in (2017) 13 SCC 369, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to
hold that: -

"41. Inherent power given to the
High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
with
the
purpose
and
object
of
advancement of justice. In case solemn
process of Court is sought to be abused by
a person with some oblique motive, the
Court has to thwart the attempt at the very
threshold. The Court cannot permit a
prosecution to go on if the case falls in one
of
the
categories
as
illustratively
enumerated by this Court in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. Judicial process is a
solemn
proceeding
which
cannot
be
allowed to be converted into an instrument
of operation or harassment. When there are
materials to indicate that a criminal
proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and proceeding is maliciously
2 All. Basant Lal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
561
instituted with an ulterior motive, the High
Court will not hesitate in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to
quash the proceeding under Category 7 as
enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal, which is to the following effect: (SCC
p. 379, para 102)

"102. (7) Where a criminal
proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge."

13. In Pankaj Kumar v. State of
Maharashtra, (2008) 16 SCC 117, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to
explain the scope and ambit of powers of
the High Courts under Section 482, Cr.P.C.
in the following words: -

"14.The scope and ambit of
powers of the High Court under Section
482 CrPC or Article 227 of the Constitution
has been enunciated and reiterated by this
Court in a series of decisions and several
circumstances under which the High Court
can exercise jurisdiction in quashing
proceedings
have
been
enumerated.
Therefore, we consider it unnecessary to
burden the judgment by making reference
to all the decisions on the point. It would
suffice to state that though the powers
possessed by the High Courts under the
said provisions are very wide but these
should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex
debito justitiae to do real and substantial
justice for the administration of which
alone the courts exist. The inherent powers
do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on
the High Court to act according to whim or
caprice. The powers have to be exercised
sparingly, with circumspection and in the
rarest of rare cases, where the court is
convinced, on the basis of material on
record, that allowing the proceedings to
continue would be an abuse of the process
of the court or that the ends of justice
require that the proceedings ought to be
quashed.
(See
Janata
Dal
v.H.S.
Chowdhary [(1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993 SCC
(Cri) 36] ,Kurukshetra University v. State
of Haryana [(1977) 4 SCC 451 : 1977 SCC
(Cri) 613] and State of Haryana v.Bhajan
Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC
(Cri) 426] .)"The expression "rarest of rare
cases" used by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Bhajan Lal has been explained in Google
India (P) Ltd. v. Visaka Industries, (2020)
4 SCC 162 in the following words: -

"43. As to what is the scope of
the expression "rarest of rare cases"
indicated in para 103, we may only refer to
the judgment of this Court in Jeffrey J.
Diermeier v. State of W.B.,(2010) 6 SCC
243 wherein the law laid down by a Bench
of three Judges in Som Mittal (2) v. State
of Karnataka (2008) 3 SCC 574 has been
referred
to
:
(Jeffrey
J.
Diermeier
case(2010) 6 SCC 243, SCC p. 252, para
23)

"23.
The
purport
of
the
expression "rarest of rare cases", to which
reference was made by Shri Venugopal, has
been explained recently in Som Mittal (2)
v. State of Karnataka(2008) 3 SCC 574.
Speaking for a Bench of three Judges, the
Hon'ble the Chief Justice said : (SCC pp.
580-81, para 9)

''9. When the words "rarest of
rare cases" are used after the words
"sparingly and with circumspection" while
describing the scope of Section 482, those
words merely emphasise and reiterate what
is intended to be conveyed by the words
"sparingly and with circumspection". They
562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mean that the power under Section 482 to
quash proceedings should not be used
mechanically or routinely, but with care
and caution, only when a clear case for
quashing is made out and failure to
interfere would lead to a miscarriage of
justice. The expression "rarest of rare
cases" is not used in the sense in which it is
used with reference to punishment for
offences under Section 302 IPC, but to
emphasise that the power under Section
482 CrPC to quash the FIR or criminal
proceedings should be used sparingly and
with circumspection.'"

14. In a recent pronouncement
reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 873, Geo
Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-

"35.The scope and ambit of
inherent powers of the Court under Section
482 CrPC or the extra-ordinary power
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, now stands well defined by series of
judicial
pronouncements.
Undoubtedly,
every High Court has inherent power to
act ex debito justitiae i.e., to do real and
substantial justice, or to prevent abuse of
the process of the Court. The powers being
very wide in itself imposes a solemn duty
on the Courts, requiring great caution in its
exercise. The Court must be careful to see
that its decision in exercise of this power is
based on sound principles. The inherent
power vested in the Court should not be
exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.
However, the inherent power or the extraordinary power conferred upon the High
Court, entitles the said Court to quash a
proceeding, if it comes to the conclusion
that allowing the proceeding to continue
would be an abuse of the process of the
Court, or the ends of justice require that the
proceeding ought to be quashed.

36.The following observations
made by this Court in the case of State of
Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy may be
relevant to note at this stage:--

"The whole some power under
Section 482 CrPC entitles the High Court
to quash a proceeding when it comes to the
conclusion that allowing the proceeding to
continue would be an abuse of the process
of the Court or that the ends of justice
require that the proceeding ought to be
quashed. The High Courts have been
invested with inherent power, both in civil
and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary
public purposes. A Court proceeding ought
not to be permitted to degenerate into a
weapon of harassment or persecution. The
Court observed in this case that ends of
justice are higher than the ends of mere
law though justice must be administered
according to laws made by the legislature."

15. In Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal
Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has formulated certain steps
to determine the veracity of a prayer for
quashing under Section 482 Criminal
Procedure Code as follows:-

"30.
Based
on
the
factors
canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we
would delineate the following steps to
determine the veracity of a prayer for
quashment raised by an accused by
invoking the power vested in the High
Court under Section 482 CrPC:

30.1. Step one: whether the
material relied upon by the accused is sound,
reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is
of sterling and impeccable quality?

30.2. Step two: whether the
material relied upon by the accused would
2 All. Basant Lal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
563
rule out the assertions contained in the
charges levelled against the accused i.e. the
material is sufficient to reject and overrule
the factual assertions contained in the
complaint i.e. the material is such as would
persuade a reasonable person to dismiss
and condemn the factual basis of the
accusations as false?

30.3. Step three: whether the
material relied upon by the accused has not
been
refuted
by
the
prosecution/complainant;
and/or
the
material is such that it cannot be justifiably
refuted by the prosecution/complainant?

30.4.Step
four:
whether
proceeding with the trial would result in an
abuse of process of the court, and would
not serve the ends of justice?

30.5. If the answer to all the steps
is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience
of the High Court should persuade it to
quash
such
criminal
proceedings
in
exercise of power vested in it under Section
482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides
doing justice to the accused, would save
precious court time, which would otherwise
be wasted in holding such a trial (as well
as proceedings arising therefrom) specially
when it is clear that the same would not
conclude in the conviction of the accused."

 (emphasis supplied by me)

16. Examining the uncontroverted
averments made in the application and the
affidavit filed in its support as well as the
other material brought on record in light of
the law laid down through various
pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, namely the application dated 27-112006 submitted by the applicants to the
District Magistrate, Aligarh, the report
submitted to the Senior Superintendent of
Police, Aligarh stating that upon inquiry no
person by the description of Raju son of
Ramdeen, resident of Bhagwan Nagar as
well as the other two persons mentioned by
the applicants in the complaint was found
and there was no need for any police action
and the report dated 04-06-07 submitted by
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh,
stating that no person of the description
"Raju son of Ramdeen, resident of
Bhagwan Nagar, Police Station, Sasni
Gate, Aligarh" could be found, coupled
with the fact that in spite of the proceedings
of the complaint case remaining stayed
since as far as back as on 14-02-2007,
neither the opposite party no.2 complainant
has put in appearance in the case nor has he
filed any application for vacation of the
interim order or a counter affidavit
disputing the correctness of the averments
made in the application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. This Court is satisfied that the
contention of Sri Madhukar Maurya, the
learned Counsel for the Applicants, that the
complaint is bogus and it was filed with a
view to achieve ulterior motive, and it is an
abuse of process of the Court, is correct and
the material relied upon by the applicant
has not been refuted.

17. The criminal proceeding initiated
by the complainant- opposite party no. 2 by
filing of the complaint is manifestly
attended with mala fide and the proceeding
is maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
some private and personal grudge. The
complainant is apparently bogus and the
complainant has no interest in pursuing his
complaint.

18. In the aforesaid circumstance, in
case the stay order is vacated now and the
proceedings of the complaint are allowed to
564 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
resume, no useful purpose will be served
and the prosecution of the applicants would
only result in their persecution. Allowing
the proceeding to continue would be an
abuse of the process of the Court, and the
ends of justice require that the proceeding
ought to be quashed. To do real and
substantial justice and to prevent abuse of
the process of the Court, the application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be
allowed.

19. Therefore, the application under
Section
482
Cr.P.C.
is
allowed.
The
Complaint Case No.1015 of 2006, Raju Vs.
Basant Lal and others, pending in the Court of
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ist, Aligarh, under Sections 323, 452, 427, 504
and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and the
summoning order dated 16-09-2006 are liable
to be quashed and are hereby quashed.
----------
(2022)02ILR A564
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482 No.4690 of 2021

Dr. Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Farooq Ayoob

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Farakshan Khatoon, Pooja Tiwari

(A) Criminal Law-FIR lodged-property
dispute-section
307
IPC-Medical
examination-simple
injuries-chances
of
conviction u/s 307 IPC is remote and
bleak-mere incorporation of section 307
IPC would not be a bar to the compromise
entered to end the disputes-impugned
order and entire proceeding quashed..

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Narinder Singh & ors. Vs St. of Pun. & anr.;
(2014) 6 SCC 466

2. St. of M.P. Vs Laxmi Narayan & ors.; (2019) 5
SCC 688
(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Farooq Ayoob, learned
counsel for the applicants as well as Mr.
Veer Raghav Chaubey, learned AGA for
the opposite party no. 1 - State and Ms.
Farakshan Khatoon, learned counsel for
opposite parties no. 2 and 3.

2. By means of the present application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants
have sought quashing of the summoning
order dated 27.08.2016 passed by the
learned
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, Court No. 19, Barabanki in
Case No. 2514 of 2016 arising out of
charge-sheet
No.
A-133/16
dated
31.05.2016 filed in case Crime No. 0176 of
2016 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323,
504, 506, 427, 307 IPC, Police Station
Safdarganj, District Barabanki.

3. On 31.05.2016 the opposite party
no. 2 had filed an FIR alleging that there
arose a property dispute between the parties
and the revenue authorities had demarcated
the land about 22 days ago. On 31.05.2016
the applicants started tiling the informant's
farms and upon protest they assaulted and
threatened the opposite parties no. 2 and 3.
On 28.07.2021 the parties have entered into
a compromise, a copy of whereof has been
filed as Annexure No. 6 to the affidavit