Criminal Misc. No. M-4475 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-4475 of 2011 Date of decision : 08.09.2011 Raj Kumar ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana and another ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sidharth Sarup, Dy. Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Kuldeep Khendalwal, Advocate for respondent No. 2. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 306 dated 02.09.2009 registered against the petitioner under sections 420, 463,467, 468, 471, 474, 474-A & 120-B IPC at police station Mahendergarh, District Mahendergarh (Annexure P-1). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the compromise FIR in question deserves to be quashed. He submits while issuing notice of motion, trial court was directed to sent a report with regard to validity or otherwise of the compromise after recording statements of all the concerned parties. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of FIR. He submits that allegations against the petitioner are of embezzlement of government funds. According to him, under such Criminal Misc. No. M-4475 of 2011 2 circumstances the complainant has no locus standi whatsoever to enter into compromise with the petitioner. He seeks to file reply by way of affidavit of Manbir Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mohindergarh Camp at Narnaul. The prayer is allowed. Affidavit is taken on record. The FIR in question was lodged by the complainant alleging that petitioner had embezzled government funds of various amounts on various occasions. After complaint was filed, investigation ensued. According to affidavit filed today in court, investigation was carried out by various higher ranked officers of the police department. It was found that petitioner along with co-accused had conspired in preparing bogus documents in the form of receipts and expenditure incurred on Panchayat works. Thus, there was sufficient evidence on record to show involvement of petitioner in the commission of crime. According to affidavit, Government is a necessary party in the case as loss has been caused to the State exchequer due to action of the accused. It has been further contended that Government neither compromised the matter nor consents to quashing of the instant FIR. In view of the nature of allegations, I am of the considered view that instant FIR cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. The report received from the trial court, thus, does not require to be commented upon. However, the trial court shall be at liberty to proceed with the case in accordance with law. The petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. September 08, 2011 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE