IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-11484 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: July 14, 2011 Ramesh Gupta .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana & another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Saini, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for respondent No.2. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No.291 dated 11.11.2010 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 498-A, 406, 34 IPC registered with Police Station, DLF, Phase-II, District Gurgaon and consequent proceedings, on the basis of compromise. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Crl. Misc. No. M-11484 of 2011 [2] perusal of order granting bail to the petitioner, placed on record as Annexure P-2 (dated 22.12.2010) makes it evident that the disputes have been settled by way of compromise. Petitioner has already paid a sum of ` 25 lac by way of cheque. Reference has also been made to order dated 29.3.2011 (Annexure P-3) i.e. order in regard to grant of bail to Nirmal Gupta wherein also, it has been recorded that compromise has been effected. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State as also learned counsel for respondent No.2 (complainant) contend that the money was given to respondent No.2 in lieu of jewellery received by the petitioner, and therefore, anticipatory bail was granted. Neither any deed of compromise has been executed nor any affidavit furnished by respondent No.2 to the effect that all the disputes have been settled by way of compromise. Learned counsel contend that a misleading statement has been given. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied on Annexure R-2/1, i.e. affidavit sworn by the petitioner on 18.4.2011 in which it has been stated that petitioner will not approach the complainant or her family members with regard to any compromise. Para 3 further states that “I only wanted to compromise the matter of the sake of my grand daughter Riya”. Learned counsel contends that sequence of events makes it evident that till 18.4.2011, no compromise was effected between the parties. Crl. Misc. No. M-11484 of 2011 [3] 5. I have considered the rival contentions. There is no compromise deed or affidavit furnished by respondent No.2 that would show that respondent No.2 has settled the disputes by way of compromise. 6. In view of the disputed questions of facts, no ground for quashing of the FIR, on the basis of compromise, is made out. 7. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) July 14, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?