Crl. Misc. No.M-22205 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-22205 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 22, 2010 Harbans Singh and others …..Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and another …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.R.M. Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.P.S. Bajwa, DAG, Punjab. Mr.Raminder Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Naresh Jain, Advocate for the applicant- Jaswant Singh. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioners seek the quashing of FIR No. 130 dated June 16, 2005 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC/ 182 IPC registered Police Station Kot Bhai, Distt. Muktsar, registered at the instance of respondent No.2, on the basis of compromise. The FIR was registered at the Crl. Misc. No.M-22205 of 2010 (O&M) [2] instance of respondent No.2 alleging that his signatures had been forged on panchayatnama by virtue of which a complaint was filed against Jaswant Singh and arms licence of Jaswant Singh was cancelled. On the basis of the resolution/ information supplied through panchayatnama, Buggar Singh, complainant has entered into a compromise with the petitioners. He has stated that he has settled the dispute with the petitioners. It has also been informed that cancellation report was submitted before the Illaqa Magistrate in the year 2006 but the said report was not accepted. At this stage, the affected party Jaswant Singh has intervened to object to the compromise having been effected between complainant- Buggar Singh and the petitioners. I have taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt, on the basis of compromise, FIR can be quashed as per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 but compromise in actual terms would mean that the complainant and all the affected parties are satisfied with any amicable decision arrived at. In the present case, since the affected party will nurses a grouse, it will not be appropriate to order the quashing of FIR. The petitioners may be acquitted on the basis of the benefit of doubt which could arise in their favour during trial. Counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the compromise, Jaswant Singh has also signed the compromise. Counsel for Jaswant Singh Crl. Misc. No.M-22205 of 2010 (O&M) [3] has pleaded ignorance about the signatures of Jaswant Singh on any compromise. In view of the above circumstances, this petition is dismissed with a direction that the trial Court will expeditiously dispose of the matter by recording the statements of all the prosecution witnesses within a period of three months. Application filed by Jaswant Singh is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. September 22, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE