IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.26892-M of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : MARCH 17, 2010 DALIP SINGH & ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl.AG, Haryana. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) On the oral request made on behalf of the petitioners, Narinder Kumar son of Arjan Dass Kalra, resident of 1164, Urban Estate, Phase-II, Jamalpur, Ludhiana, who is the complainant of the impugned FIR, is impleaded as respondent No.2. Office is directed to make necessary correction in the array of parties. Notice be issued to the newly added respondent No.2. Shri K.S. Dadwal, Advocate, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the parties contend that all the disputes Criminal Misc. No.26892-M of 2009 2 between the parties have been settled in view of compromise deed, placed on record as Annexure P-17, and therefore, this petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing of case FIR No.198 dated 7.9.2007 under Sections 420, 341, 427, 506, 379, 447, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Sahnewal, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-10) and consequent proceedings, be allowed. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 informs the court that condition No.9 of the compromise deed (Annexure P-17) has not been complied with, which provides that the second party; namely, the petitioners, have agreed to execute the sale deed and get it registered in regard to land mentioned in the said para, up to 15.2.2010. The needful has not been done. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions from the petitioners, who are present in court, contends that the petitioners stand by the condition and shall do the needful in accordance with condition No.9 of the compromise deed (Annexure P-17), within a period of two weeks. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, states that the civil suit filed by respondent No.2-complainant has not been withdrawn, as provided under condition No.3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions from respondent No.2, who is present in court, contends that the civil suit entitled 'Kulwant Singh vs. Dalip Singh and others' is scheduled to be taken up for hearing by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, on 25.5.2010. On the said date, the suit would be withdrawn. Learned counsel for the petitioners agrees with the said Criminal Misc. No.26892-M of 2009 3 contention made on behalf of respondent No.2. It has been brought out that all the other conditions of the compromise deed (Annexure P-17) have either been complied with by the respective parties or would be complied with as agreed above. In view of the fact that all the disputes have been settled by way of compromise deed (Annexure P-17), the contents whereof have been endorsed on behalf of the petitioners and respondent No.2, and the fact that the parties have agreed in court today that condition No.9 shall be complied with by the petitioners and condition No.3 shall be complied with by respondent No.2, the petition is allowed. FIR No.198 dated 7.9.2007 under Sections 420, 341, 427, 506, 379, 447, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Sahnewal, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-10) and consequent proceedings are hereby quashed. March 17, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?