Criminal Misc. No.M-23899 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-23899 of 2010 Date of Decision : 4th August, 2011 Ravinder Kumar Aggarwal .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present : Mr. M. S. Sachdev, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. R. S. Rawat, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. * * * * L.N.MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Ravinder Kumar Aggarwal has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr. P.C.), for quashing FIR No.98 dated 01.09.2003 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC registered at Police Station Division No.2, Jalandhar, in view of compromise Annexure P-2 effected with respondent No.2-complainant injured Lalit Kumar Sayal. Vide order dated 03.03.2011, parties were directed to remain present before the trial Court for recording their statements regarding compromise. Report has been received from learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar that statements of petitioner-accused and respondent No.2-complainant have been recorded and compromise effected between the parties appears to be genuine. Copies of statements of petitioner and respondent No.2 recorded by learned Magistrate have Criminal Misc. No.M-23899 of 2010 -2- also been received with the report. In view thereof, I am satisfied that the parties have effected compromise. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. In appropriate cases, FIR can be quashed on the basis of compromise by exercising power under Section 482 Cr. P. C., even if the offences are not compoundable. It was so held by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2007(2) Law Herald (Punjab & Haryana) 2225. In the instant case, there was dispute regarding property and money between the parties. The same has been settled amicably. Respondent No.2-complainant has stated before the Magistrate that he has received full and final settlement amount and nothing is now due against the accused and therefore, the complainant has no objection if the FIR is quashed. The property/money dispute between the parties has thus been amicably settled. Grievance of respondent No.2-complainant has been redressed. Accordingly, it is fit case in which FIR should be quashed. In view of the aforesaid, instant petition is allowed and impugned FIR Annexure P-1 is quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. ( L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 4th August, 2011 'raj'