JUDGMENT Mr. Rajan Gupta J. (Oral) - The petitioners have preferred this petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 650 dated 28.11.2008 registered against them under sections 364- A, 473, 419/34 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act at police station, Sector 39, Chandigarh (Annexure P/1) and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of trial before the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and thus FIR in question deserves to be quashed. By way of separate application (C.M. No. 43487 of 2011) he has placed on record statement of PW 29 (Bhupinder Kaur) mother of abducted child to contend that main witness of prosecution having turned hostile, no useful purpose would be served by allowing the trial to continue. 3. The prayer has, however, been opposed by learned counsel appearing for the U.T. Chandigarh. He submits that in view of nature of allegations levelled in the FIR, no case for quashing of same is made out. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. The FIR was lodged by Surjit Singh who stated that he was residing in House No. 5822-A, Sector 38 West, Chandigarh. He has two sons, elder aged 16 years and younger aged about 07 years. On 28.11.2008, his younger son Japjit Singh had gone to attend tuition in the evening at about 4.00 p.m. However, he neither reached the place of tuition nor returned back home. At about 5.45 p.m., a call was received from mobile no. 9781356592 from one person who disclosed his name as Rohit informing that Japjit Singh has been kidnapped and taken to Ambala. Thereafter, another call was received on mobile no. 9781356592 by the complainant and a demand of ransom of Rs.20 lacs was made for release of the child. The caller again rang up on 28.11.2008 from mobile no. 9888508476 asking how much amount had been arranged. The person who spoke in local dialect (Haryanvi) threatened that in case money was not arranged consequences would not be good. Complaint was lodged with the police. Pursuant to same an investigation ensued. Investigation agency cracked the case. It apprehended the culprits and thereafter put in challan before the competent court of jurisdiction. The person who spoke in local dialect (Haryanvi) threatened that in case money was not arranged consequences would not be good. Complaint was lodged with the police. Pursuant to same an investigation ensued. Investigation agency cracked the case. It apprehended the culprits and thereafter put in challan before the competent court of jurisdiction. During the pendency of trial before the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, a compromise is stated to have been arrived at between the complainant and the accused. The prosecution witness PW-29 who is mother of the abducted child appeared before the trial court but resiled. The public prosecutor thus declared the said witness hostile and subjected her to cross-examination. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that no case for quashing on the basis of compromise is made out. The allegations apart from non compoundable are serious in nature. Star prosecution witness having resiled, possibility of her being under pressure cannot be ruled out. It is, thus, necessary that trial court should come to an independent conclusion after appreciating the entire evidence on record. The apex court in Manoj Sharma vs. State & ors. [2008(6) LAW HERALD (SC) 4118] : 2008(4) RCR (Crl.) 827 cautioned against quashing of cases involving serious offences on the basis of compromise. 7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and judgment in Manoj Sharma, I am of the considered view that no case for quashing of FIR is made out. The petition is thus without any merit and is hereby dismissed. ------------