Criminal Misc.No.M-1729 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.No.M-1729 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision 16.02.2009 Murari Lal Noharia and others ......Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and another ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.Vivek Suri, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Shailesh Gupta, D.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1-State. Mr.Vishawjeet Bedi, Advocate, for respondent No.2-complainant. ***** RAJAN GUPTA, J(ORAL): Petitioners have brought this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of F.I.R.No.487 dated 20.12.2002 registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. at Police Station Kotwali, Patiala (Annexure P1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that during the pendency of the trial, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, allegations in the FIR in question are only regarding forgery of a receipt for a sum of Rs.30,000/-. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant does not dispute the factum of compromise. Respondent No.2-complainant, who is present in Court today and identified by his counsel Sh.Vishawjeet Bedi, Advocate, states that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. The Criminal Misc.No.M-1729 of 2009 (O&M) 2 affidavit filed by respondent No.2-complainant is taken on record as Mark- A. In view of the compromise, arrived at between the parties, learned State counsel also does not have any serious objection to the quashing of the FIR. In view of the judgment delivered by this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it is apparent that no useful purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings pursuant to the FIR in question as both the complainant as well as the petitioners have already compromised the issue. The complainant no longer appears to be having any grievance against the petitioners. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that continuation of proceedings pursuant to the FIR in question would be a futile exercise. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed, the FIR in question and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. February 16, 2009 (RAJAN GUPTA) mamta-II JUDGE