IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-12091 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: November 14, 2011 Vinod Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Naresh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab, for the State. Mr. J.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR No.490, dated 28.9.2006, registered under Section 420/468/471 IPC, at Police Station Kotwali Bathinda, District Bathinda, on the basis of compromise. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint to the Police on which the said FIR was lodged against the petitioner. It is stated that this FIR was lodged on the basis of some misunderstanding on the part of the complainant. The allegation in the FIR against the petitioner, who is a Car dealer, is that he had sold a Hyundi Santro XP Car Euro II model Crl. Misc. No. M-12091 of 2011 -2- instead of Euro III model. With the intervention of the relatives and close friends of the parties, the matter has now been amicably settled to the satisfaction of both the parties. The compromise deed has been reduced in writing and is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2. As per the compromise, the complainant has no objection if the above-mentioned FIR is quashed by this Court. The petitioner on his behalf has agreed not to file any defamation case. This Court on July 20, 2011 had directed the parties to appear before the trial Court and record their statements. Statement of Rakesh Kumar-complainant has been recorded, where he has stated that he has compromised the matter with Vinod Kumar- petitioner and now issues have been settled. The complainant has further stated that he is left with no grudge and that this compromise is reached voluntarily. To similar effect is the statement of Vinod Kumar(petitioner), S/o Madan Lal. Since the parties have appeared before the Court and made their statements standing by the compromise, permitting the trial to continue would be exercise in futility. The dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. Such like disputes are best resolved by way of compromise. No useful purpose would be served now to allow these criminal proceedings to continue. For support, reference can be made to the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052. Crl. Misc. No. M-12091 of 2011 -3- The present petition is, accordingly, allowed. FIR No.490, dated 28.9.2006, registered under Section 420/468/471 IPC, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. November 14, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE