Criminal Misc. No. M-10297 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Misc. No. M-10297 of 2009 Date of Decision: 5.5.2009 Vidya Devi …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the State. Mr. Baljit Puri, Advocate for respondent No.2. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 57 dated 23.2.2005 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala, under Sections 452, 448, 511, 437, 380 & 34 IPC. Quashing of FIR (Annexure P1 ) has been sought on basis of compromise (Annexure P2) arrived between the parties. In the present case, FIR was lodged on the statement of Sushma Devi, respondent No.2. It has been stated therein that Sushma Devi, respondent No.2 has entered into an agreement to purchase a plot Criminal Misc. No. M-10297 of 2009 2 measuring 75 yards from the petitioner and the whole sale consideration was given to her. After having received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 21.3.2001, the petitioner executed an agreement and handed over the possession to the complainant-respondent No.2. The petitioner assured the complainant that after returning the loan taken by her in regard to said plot, she would get the sale deed executed. But the petitioner did not execute the sale deed. Thereafter, complainant Sushma Devi filed civil suit but inspite of receiving summons the petitioner did not appear and ex-parte proceedings were initiated against her. On 21.2.2005, Vidya Devi along with her son-in-law Ramesh Kumar after breaking open the locks had removed all the articles of complainant. It is stated that during the pendency of present petition, a compromise has been arrived between the complainant and accused named in the FIR. The compromise has been placed on the record as Annexure P2. In the reply filed by way of affidavit, complainant Sushma Devi has admitted the factum of compromise. Sushma Devi is present in the Court also. She has been identified by Manjit Singh, Head Constable. She has also been identified by her counsel Mr. Baljit Puri, Advocate. Mr. Puri, on instructions from Sushma Devi, complainant, has stated that compromise has been arrived between the parties. Since the parties have arrived at compromise in order to promote everlasting peace, amity and harmony, the present FIR is liable to be quashed. It has been held by Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Criminal Misc. No. M-10297 of 2009 3 Singh v. State of Punjab 2007(3) Recent Criminal Reports 1052 that compromise not only promotes peace in the society but also saves parties from litigation. In view of the law laid down in Kulwinder Singh’s case (supra) and keeping in view the compromise arrived at between the parties, present petition is accepted and impugned FIR along with all consequential proceedings is quashed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge May 5, 2009 “DK”