Mr. Devinder Gupta, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners have, in this petition filed undersection 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayed for quashing the complaint (Annexure D) filed by the respondent under Sections 323/506/448/34 of the Indianpenal Code which is stated to be pending in the Court of Shri O. P. Soni, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi as also the order of summoning the petitioners passedon 5. 6. 1992. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT, Ved Prakash, is a neighbour of the petitioners. On 25. 12. 1987some quarrel took place which resulted in police taking proceedings undersections 107 and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the parties. Petitioners as well as respondent were arrested. After the proceedings concludedgood sense appears to have prevailed upon the parties. On 3. 6. 1988 at theintervention of some respectable persons of the locality, the matter was patched upand thus no dispute remained to be resolved with respect to the incident which hadhappened on 25. 12. 1987. As a result of the compromise terms of which werereduced into writing, the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 2. 9. 1988 ordered thedropping of proceedings and cancelling the bond. ( 3 ) AFTER the proceedings had come to an end as a result of the compromise,it appears that on 15. 12. 1988, respondent filed a complaint against the petitionersfor an offence under Sections 323/506/448/34 alleging that on 25. 12. 1987 while hewas attending the procession on the birth centenary of Guru Govind Singhji, the petitioners threatened him with dire consequences and started beating him bygiving blows. After the incident, it is alleged that he and the petitioners werearrested and a Kalandara under Sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared by the police. Since petitioners had committed the offence,therefore, he prayed that they be punished in accordance with law. In support ofthe complaint, the respondent examined some witnesses and on 5. 6. 1992 theimpugned order was passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate summoning thepetitioners: It is this order and the complaint which are sought to be quashed inthese proceedings. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through theaffidavits exchanged amongst them. It is not disputed by respondent that only oneincident took place on 25. 12. 6. 1992 theimpugned order was passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate summoning thepetitioners: It is this order and the complaint which are sought to be quashed inthese proceedings. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through theaffidavits exchanged amongst them. It is not disputed by respondent that only oneincident took place on 25. 12. 1987 for which proceedings were initiated against thepetitioners under Sections 107 and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whichultimately culminated in a compromise and for the same incident a complaint waslate on preferred by him. Submission of the leaed Counsel for the petitioners isthat it is with a view to harass the petitioners that the respondent, after thecompromise, has initiated the proceedings which deserve to be quashed on variousgrounds stated in the petition. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent contends that only proceedings undersections 107 and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were got dropped and not theact of the petitioner in which respondent was given beatings by the petitioners. ( 6 ) ON considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for theparties and on going through the respective affidavits, I find that after thecompromise nothing survived and now allowing the proceedings initiated by therespondent on a complaint to continue will be nothing but total abuse of process oflaw. The compromise which was reduced into writing, if read as a whole, wouldshow that at the intervention of respectables of the locality the differences werepatched up and respondent in categorical terms stated that no dispute was left asregards the incident dated 25. 12. 1987. The compromise reads: "2. That through the intervention of respectable people of the locality, thematter has been patched up between the parties and no dispute is leftover. 3. That the parties are both neighbourers and through litigation, there aremore chances of their relations becoming strain, so they have totallycompromised on all point. 4. That in the light of the compromise between the parties no dispute isleft over, and there is no apprehension of breach of peace any more. " ( 7 ) IN case on 25. 12. 1987 only one incident had taken place, which on 31. 8. 1988was patched up by the parties and was also accepted by the Sub Divisionalmagistrate on 2. 9. " ( 7 ) IN case on 25. 12. 1987 only one incident had taken place, which on 31. 8. 1988was patched up by the parties and was also accepted by the Sub Divisionalmagistrate on 2. 9. 1988, complaint based upon the same incident which wasinstituted by the respondent after a period of almost one year from the date ofincident and more than 3 months from the date of compromise on 15. 12. 1988, isnothing but appears to be an after thought and if is allowed to continue moreespecially now after a lapse of six years will be nothing but abuse of the process of. law. In view of above, I allow the petition and quash the complaint (Annexure D)as well as the impugned order dated 5. 6. 1993.