IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.24082 -M of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : NOVEMBER 2, 2011 SANJEEV AGGARWAL @ RINKI & ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Pawan Kumar, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Anshuman Mandhar, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Saini, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. SK Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This petition has been filed under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for quashing of FIR No.355 dated 01.10.2010 under Sections 406, 420, 120-B, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Sector 55, Faridabad (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings, on the basis of compromise dated 7.8.2011 (Annexure P-2). Rajeev Nayan Jaiswal, respondent No.2/complainant, has also sworn affidavit dated 7.8.2011 (Annexure P-3) in support of compromise (Annexure P-2). 2 It appears that there was a money transaction between respondent No.2/complainant and the petitioners, on account of which the FIR came to be lodged at the instance of Criminal Misc. No.24082 -M of 2011 (O&M) 2 respondent No.2. 3 In the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No.2, all the disputes have been settled. A total sum of ` 18,89,250/- was to be paid to respondent No.2. ` 5 lacs were paid in advance. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 endorses the fact that a sum of ` 13,89,250/- has been received in court today by way of seven bank drafts in favour of respondent No.2. On receipt of such amount, learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that let this petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed, as the parties want to live in peace. All the civil rights of respondent No.2 arising out of the transaction have been satisfied. 4 Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that because the disputes have been settled by way of compromise, the State would have no objection to the quashing of the FIR. 5 I have considered the issue. 6 On account of some civil dispute, the FIR came to be lodged. The disputes have been settled and the civil rights of respondent No.2 have been satisfied by the petitioners by way of payment of the amount due. In such circumstances, respondent No.2 is not ready to prosecute the petitioners. Continuance of proceedings in such circumstances shall not serve any purpose in law. 7 The petition, in the interest of peace and harmony, is allowed. 8 FIR No.355 dated 01.10.2010 under Sections 406, Criminal Misc. No.24082 -M of 2011 (O&M) 3 420, 120-B, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Sector 55, Faridabad (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings, are hereby quashed. NOVEMBER 2, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?