1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-21216 of 2005 Date of decision:- 23.12.2010 Sanjeev Marwah, Regional Commercial Manager, Castrol India Ltd., having office at 5th Floor, East Tower, NBCC Place, Pragati Vihar, Bhisham Pitamah Marg, New Delhi and others. ......Petitioners Vs State of Haryana and another. ......Respondents CRM No. M-9360 of 2010 Date of decision:- 23.12.2010 Mr. P. Vashisht, Senior Sales Manager, Castrol India Ltd. having office at 5th Floor, East Tower, NBCC Place, Pragati Vihar, Bhisham Pitamah Marg, New Delhi and another. ......Petitioners Vs State of Haryana and another. ......Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Present: Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate, Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rohit Khanna, Advocate, and Mr. Rahul Raj, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Addl. AG, Haryana, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. * * * * 2 RANJAN GOGOI, J (ORAL) Pursuant to the order dated 20.12.2010 an affidavit has been filed by the respondent, Anita Goyal, in the two cases under consideration. Before dealing with the said affidavit and other connected issues a brief resume of the facts will be necessary. Two FIRs i.e. FIR No. 280 dated 04.11.2004 and FIR No. 146 dated 05.04.2005 were filed against the accused-petitioners by the complainant/respondent No. 2, Anita Goyal, alleging commission of certain criminal offences. While CRM No. M-21216 of 2005 has been filed for quashing of the FIR No. 146 of 2005, CRM No. M- 9360 of 2010 has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 280 of 2004. There was an earlier Criminal Miscellaneous application filed by the accused-petitioners before this Court i.e. CRM No. M-54619 of 2004 for quashing of FIR No. 280 of 2004. The same was dismissed by this Court by order dated 17.02.2009. The accused-petitioners had filed a Special Leave Petition against the aforesaid order dated 17.02.2009 which was withdrawn on 07.12.2009. At that point of time, therefore, only the application for quashing of FIR No. 146 of 2005 i.e. CRM No. M-21216 of 2005 was pending. While the aforesaid case was pending before this Court, Criminal Miscellaneous case No. 16695 of 2010 in CRM No. M-21216 of 2005 was filed narrating before the Court a compromise stated to have been arrived at by and between the parties for a sum of Rs. 31 lacs as full and final payment to resolve the disputes arising in 3 both the FIRs. Keeping in view the aforesaid compromise claimed to have been arrived at, CRM No. M-9360 of 2010 has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 280 of 2004 in the changed circumstances. In the said Criminal Miscellaneous application another Miscellaneous case No. 28588 of 2010 has been filed stating that in terms of the compromise by and between the parties which was signed on 29.04.2010 payment of Rs. 31 lacs had been tendered to the complainant, Anita Goyal, which amount had been duly encashed by her on the very next day of the agreement. However, the aforesaid complainant was not cooperating in bringing the matters pending before the Court to a close and, therefore, consequential orders should be passed. It would be appropriate to notice that in the said Criminal Miscellaneous case an affidavit had been filed by the complainant, Anita Goyal, wherein it is, inter-alia, contended that the agreement by and between the parties was to settle the dispute in FIR No. 146 of 2005 on payment of the amount of Rs. 31 lacs. While the matters were so situated both the cases were taken up for hearing on 20.12.2010. On the said date the Court had passed an order to the effect that the respondent/complainant, Anita Goyal, may return the amount of Rs. 31 lacs to the accused-petitioners in which event CRM No. M-9360 of 2010 (for quashing of FIR No. 280 of 2004) would have no legs to stand in view of the earlier orders passed by this Court and the Apex Court. In the said order it was also observed that upon return of the amount of Rs. 31 lacs, FIR No. 280 of 2004 would be duly investigated, whereas, CRM No. M-21216 of 4 2005 for quashing of FIR No. 146 of 2005 would be heard by the Court on merits. In the affidavit filed today by the complainant, Anita Goyal, it is stated that the complainant is not in a position to return the amount of Rs. 31 lacs received by her and that she has no objection if both the FIRs are quashed by the Court. Notwithstanding the aforesaid categorical statement made in the affidavit of Anita Goyal, the Court had not proceeded to quash the two FIRs merely on the statement of the complainant but had deemed it appropriate to look into the agreement dated 29.04.2010 with a view to finding out as to whether the said agreement was in respect of both the FIRs or only in respect of FIR No. 146 of 2005 as claimed by the complainant, Anita Goyal. Such an exercise was considered necessary by the Court to satisfy its conscience that the eventual order that is to be passed in the two cases would not cause any injustice to either of the parties. To arrive at the correct conclusion on the contentions noticed above, the Court has looked into the agreement dated 29.04.2010 copies of which have been placed before the Court by the learned Counsels for both sides. Both the copies are identical in content and does not contain any variation. On reading the said compromise deed the Court finds that the same had been signed by both the parties in full and final settlement of the disputes which were the subject matter of both the FIRs, namely, FIR No. 280 dated 04.11.2004 and FIR No. 146 dated 05.04.2005. Furthermore, it is not 5 in dispute that the complainant has received the sum of Rs. 31 lacs on 30.04.2010 pursuant to the agreement dated 29.04.2010. The above facts leave the Court satisfied that the contention of the respondent/complainant that she has signed the agreement understanding the same to be in respect of FIR No. 146 of 2005 only, is not correct. As the complainant and the accused persons have settled the matter out of Court on payment of a sum of Rs. 31 lacs by the accused which has been duly received by the complainant, I am of the view that in exercise of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. both the FIRs should not be allowed to remain on record to form the basis of any further investigation. Rather, the Court is of the view that the proceedings in both the FIRs should be quashed in the interest of justice. Accordingly, both the Criminal Miscellaneous applications i.e CRM No. M-21216 of 2005 and CRM No. M-9360 of 2010 are allowed and the proceedings in FIR No. 280 dated 04.11.2004 and FIR No. 146 dated 05.04.2005 stand quashed in the light of the compromise arrived at by and between the parties. (RANJAN GOGOI) 23.12.2010 JUDGE Amodh 6