compromise between the parties. The petitioners being the police constables, whose duty is to protect the citizens of their person and property allegedly raided a gambling place and forcibly seized an amount of Rs.80,000/- to one lakh from the de facto complainant gave him back part of the amount of Rs.45,000/-. If they seized the amount from gambling place, they have to deposit the amount in the police station along with the report. Obviously they did not do so. After filing of the quash petition, they brought the de facto complainant to the Court and the de facto complainant stated that he compromised the matter with the petitioners and therefore, he is not any more willing to prosecute the petitioners. Every case where in the complainant or victim has no objection for quashment cannot be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in a routine and mechanical way. Further in the present case, at this stage it is doubtful whether the de facto complainant voluntarily approached the Court for quashment in view of compromise or whether he is under threat or coercion by the police. It would be possible for the trial Court to ascertain the said fact after examining him at the trial.
