IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-9835 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: August 30, 2011 M/s Omaxe Limited and others …..Petitioners versus State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.V.K. Chaudhari, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Sidharth Sarup, DAG, Haryana Ms.Niti Wadhawan, Advocate for respondent No.2 .. RAJAN GUPTA, J.: (Oral) The petitioners have filed this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.246 dated 15.9.2010 (Annexure P-2) registered under sections 420 and 406 IPC at police station Suraj Kund, District Faridabad and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3). Learned counsel for the parties submit that during the pendency of this petition, a compromise was effected between the petitioners and respondent No.2- complainant. Relying upon the judgment reported as Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, learned counsel submit that in view of compromise, the FIR in question deserves to be quashed. Learned State counsel does not dispute the ratio of judgment in Kulwinder Singh’s case (supra) and submits that in case a compromise is arrived at between the parties, Crl.Misc.No.M-9835 of 2011 - 2 - the State shall not stand in the way of quashing of FIR. He, however, submits that after registration of FIR, the investigative machinery was set into motion and trial ensued. Thus, costs of the proceedings need to be imposed. Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to deposit Rs.50,000/-, as costs of the proceedings, with the Haryana State Legal Services Authority within two months on receipt of certified copy of this order. Heard. It appears that while issuing notice of motion a direction was issued by this court (Hon’ble Daya Chaudhary,J.) to Illaqa Magistrate to record statements of the parties with regard to validity or otherwise of the compromise. A report has been received from the court below, operative part whereof reads thus: “3. Complainant also appeared. Written compromise Ex.C-1 produced. I have inquired from both the parties about the genuineness of compromise and validity of compromise. In reply both the parties i.e. complainant and accused have stated that the compromise between them have been taken place voluntarily without any pressure of undue influence and after the compromise both the parties are residing peacefully. 4. I am satisfied that the compromise is voluntarily and without any coercion and undue pressure. Their statements recorded separately. Written Compromise Ex.C-1, original statements of both the parties are enclosed herewith.” The compromise is in the interest of parties and after the matter has been resolved by an amicable 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-9835 of 2011 - 3 - settlement, no useful purpose is likely to be served by continuance of the criminal proceedings. Thus, the present FIR and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed in light of Full Bench judgment of this court in Kulwinder Singh’s case (supra). Resultantly, the petition is allowed. The FIR in question and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed subject to petitioners’ complying with the undertaking aforesaid. August 30, 2011 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE 3