IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-29490 of 2010 Date of Decision:29.4.2011 Naresh Kumar .... Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Ritesh Bahri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Rana, D.A.G. Haryana. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.342 dated 26.12.2004 under Sections 406,419,420,467,468,471,120-B IPC Police Station Sohna, District Gurgaon and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties as per the affidavits (P-3 and P-4) On 14.10.2010, following order was passed: “Notice of motion be issued to the respondents, returnable for 9.12.2010. The Area Magistrate is directed to send his report with regard to the validity or otherwise of the affidavits (Annexure P-3 & P-4), after recording the statements of all the concerned parties before the next date of hearing.” Thereafter, in pursuance to the order dated 14.10.2010, two CRM M-29490 of 2010 -2- letters have been received, one from the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)-cum-JMIC, Gurgaon and another from the District and Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, stating therein that affidavits P-3 and P-4 have not been received alongwith the copy of the order of this Court. Accordingly, vide order dated 17.2.2011, the Registry was directed to send the copy of order dated 14.10.2010 alongwith the affidavits P-3 and P-4 for compliance of the said order. In pursuance to the same, status report from the office of learned District and Sessions Judge, Gurgaon has been received alongwith its enclosures i.e. Statement of complainant regarding validity of affidavits Annexure P-3 (Mark-B) and Annexure P-4 (Mark A) and the report of Sh. Rajesh Gupta, Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Gurgaon. The report of JMIC, Gurgaon, reads as under: “Present: APP for the State with Sh. D.C. Gupta, Advocate for complainant. Accused on bail with Sh. Sanjeev Vats, Advocate. Complainant appeared in pursuance of notice. He submitted by making separate statement that he was defrauded of Rs.48,00,000/-. However, subsequently he received a sum of Rs.17,50,000/- from accused Naresh Kumar. He further stated that he has gone through the affidavits Annexures P-3 and P-4. He further submitted that after receiving the aforesaid amount he never stated that he do not want to continue the proceedings against accused Naresh. He also stated that his signatures on the affidavits Annexures P-3 and P-4 were obtained by Panchayat forcibly. He filed copy of affidavits Annexures P-3 and P-4 CRM M-29490 of 2010 -3- as Mark B and Mark A respectively. In given circumstances, it appears that the complainant wants to continue the criminal proceedings against accused Naresh Khatana. Accordingly, the statement of complainant alongwith affidavits Mark A and Mark B and report of this Court be sent to Hon'ble High Court after retaining copy of saiddocuments on judicial file. Now to come upon 27.5.2011 the date fixed for further proceedings.” Thus, the affidavits Annexure P-3 and P-4 relied upon by the petitioner, which were referred as Mark B and Mark A in the aforesaid report have been disputed by the complainant stating that the signatures on the said affidavits were obtained forcibly. Thus, the compromise being disputed/not being entered out of a free will, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR only on the basis of compromise is not maintainable. Dismissed accordingly. 29.4.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE