IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-4733 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 08.07.2011 Tej Partap Singh ... Petitioner versus State of Punjab & others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present: Mr. H.S.Dhindsa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Gill, DAG, Punjab. Mr. G.S.Gill, Advocate for respondent No.4. **** Mahesh Grover, J. (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of the FIR No.121 dated 11.06.1998 for the offence under Section 406 IPC registered at Police Station Division No.6, Ludhiana and consequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. The petitioner was implicated in the aforesaid offence on a complaint made against him by respondent No.4. The petitioner had taken a loan from Punjab Financial Corporation, Ludhiana and failed to discharge his liability. Proceedings against him were initiated. Pursuant to the registration of FIR and proceedings in the trial courts, petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 406 IPC and sentenced rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- by the learned trial court against whose judgment, he preferred an appeal, which is still pending. During the pendency of these proceedings, the matter has been settled between petitioner and respondent No.4 and entire liability has been discharged. Compromise has been effected, which is not denied by learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. In view of the said compromise, the prayer for quashing of FIR and other consequent proceeding arising therefrom is made out. According to Section 320 of Cr.PC, the Court before whom the prosecution is pending is able to permit the compounding of the offence. Section 406 IPC reads as under: “Punishment for criminal breach of trust – Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” In this view of the matter, Section 482 Cr.PC may not be the answer to the grievance of the petitioner. However, it is not denied by both the counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondent that similar application for compounding of the offence can be filed before the trial court. In view of the above, trial court is directed to consider the prayer of the petitioner to compound the offence in view of the fact that he has discharged the liability and settled the matter. Disposed of. July 08, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) sonia Judge