Criminal Misc. No. M-32935 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-32935 of 2010 Date of decision : 03.08.2011 Swami Ram and another ....Petitioners V/s State of Haryana and another ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. A.S. Klar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sidharth Sarup, Dy. Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. P.S. Sikand, Advocate for respondent No. 2. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR registered against the petitioners under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC at police station Mullana on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No. 2 - Rakesh Kumar who lodged a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. had arrived at a compromise with the petitioners. In view of same, FIR in question deserves to be quashed. Learned State counsel has, however, opposed the prayer. He submits that in view of allegations levelled in the FIR, the prayer for quashing the same on the basis of compromise is misconceived. He has referred to reply filed by way of affidavit of Kushal Singh, Deputy Criminal Misc. No. M-32935 of 2010 2 Superintendent of Police, Barara, District Ambala. He submits that the petitioners infact fabricated government records in order to show that proclamation was carried out to advertise the post of Lambardar in the village. However, it was later on found that no proclamation was carried out due to which petitioner No. 1 was selected. Reply has also been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 (Rakesh Kumar) today in court wherein it has been submitted that he has no objection if the proceedings in the FIR pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala be quashed. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The FIR came to be registered on a complaint made by respondent No. 2 – Rakesh Kumar before Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Pursuant to same, investigation ensued and investigating agency filed challan before the competent court of jurisdiction. According to allegations, petitioner No. 2 who was Halka Patwari got a proclamation effected in the revenue estate of village Tapria on 14.01.2007. On the direction of Naib Tehsildar, petitioner No. 2 got proclamation (Munadi) effected in village calling the desirous persons for the post of Lambardar and entry to this effect is recorded at serial No. 342 in the daily dairy (Roznamcha) of the Patwari. The complainant alleged that no proclamation was carried out in the village and report was made by petitioner No. 2 in connivance with petitioner No. 1. Out of three persons who had applied for the post of Lambardar, two withdrew in favour of petitioner No. 1. One of the persons (Rajbir Singh) was the real nephew of petitioner No. 1 and other Basant Kumar was not eligible to apply being minor. The lower revenue officer Criminal Misc. No. M-32935 of 2010 3 thus recommended candidature of petitioner No. 1, being the only candidate. The Collector Ambala vide order dated 17.05.2007 appointed him on the said post. Respondent No. 2, thereafter, challenged the order before the Commissioner, Ambala Division who set-aside appointment of petitioner No. 1 on 13.02.2008. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is inexplicable as to how FIR can be quashed on the basis of compromise entered into with complainant-Rakesh Kumar. Entry No. 342 in the rapat roznamcha maintained by petitioner No. 2 was found to be false and fabricated. In view of allegations of fabrication of government records, no case for quashing is made out. On the other hand, the court is of the considered view that respondent No. 2 may not have any locus standi to enter into a compromise in the circumstances of the case. Dismissed. August 03, 2011 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE