CRM No. M 19113 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 19113 of 2009 Date of decision: 18.02.2010 Gurbakhshish Singh and another ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. M S Kang, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. B B S Teji, AAG, Punjab for respondent No. 1 Mr. Parveen Kumar Vohra, Advocate for respondent No. 2 -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure of Code for quashing of FIR No. 55 (Annexure P-1) dated 21.03.1998 under Sections 406, 498-A, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur, District Hoshiarpur. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that a compromise was effected between the parties on 17.01.1999. Copy of the same has been CRM No. M 19113 of 2009 2 placed on record as Annexure P-2. Reply has been filed by respondent No.2 stating therein that Kamaljit Kaur never signed any compromise and her signatures were forged by some other lady. It is further stated that the relatives and supporters put pressure on the answering respondent to withdraw from the case and also used coercive methods. As per the said compromise, a lump-sum amount of Rs.3.40 lac was to be paid to Kamaljit Kaur. It is stated that Kamaljit Kaur also swore an affidavit before the Executive Magistrate, Hoshiarpur on 25.08.1999. As per the affidavit, Rs.3.40 lacs have been received by the complainant and his daughter from the accused party and that nothing was due. In fact, in para 5 of the reply, it is mentioned that an amount of Rs.2.00 lacs were received by the answering respondent and the remaining amount mentioned in the compromise was yet to be paid. At this point, learned counsel for the answering respondent submitted that earlier CRM M 23895 of 1999 for quashing of FIR on the basis of the same compromise was also filed. The said petition was dismissed by this court vide order dated 14.12.2001 and the parties were relegated to the trial Court in view of the provisions of Section 245 Cr.P.C. The trial Court was also directed to find out after summoning the parties whether a compromise had taken place between them or not. In pursuance to the said order, the petitioners through their attorney filed application under Section 245 Cr.P.C. for discharging the accused/applicant. However, the said application was dismissed on the ground that the petitioners were declared Proclaimed Offenders and since they did not appear in the Court, CRM No. M 19113 of 2009 3 their application was held to be not maintainable. In view of the same, learned counsel for the petitioners prays that he may be allowed to withdraw the present petition with liberty to appear before the trial Court. It is further pleaded that meanwhile an interim protection should be granted to the petitioners. Taking into account the aforesaid facts and also taking into account the fact that Rs.2.00 lacs is admitted to have been received by the answering respondent in para 5 of their reply in part compliance of the compromise, the present petition is dismissed with direction to the trial Court that in case, the petitioners appear before the trial Court within six weeks from today and move an application for grant of regular bail, the same shall be considered sympathetically and decided within three days. Till then, the petitioners shall not be arrested during the period of six weeks. Disposed of accordingly. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge February 18, 2010 mohan