Crl. Misc. No. M- 32795 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 32795 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: April 26,2010 Jagmohan Kaur and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. AK Khubbar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.2. GURDEV SINGH, J. Heard. Petitioners, Jagmohan Kaur, Sukhvinder Singh and Manpreet Kaur, have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing FIR No. 163 dated 27.5.2009 registered at Police Station Ambala City, under Sections 406, 498-A, 323, 506 IPC, and all subsequent proceedings, in pursuance of the compromise, which has been entered into between them and respondent No.2/complainant. According to the petitioners, son of petitioner No.1 was married to respondent No.2/complainant, who was suffering from renal failure and had to undergo kidney transplant and ultimately expired on 2.3.2008. After his death, respondent No.2 and her Crl. Misc. No. M- 32795 of 2009 2 parents had evil design to extract money from them and as such started making false allegations. Petitioner No.1, being widow, was forced to compromise by the relatives of respondent No.2 on 15.3.2009, in which it was agreed that a sum of Rs. 4,70,000/- shall be paid to respondent No.2 and thereafter that respondent left the house alongwith the children. That petitioner could not arrange that huge amount and thereafter respondent No.2 got lodged the said FIR against all of them. The petitioner got prepared two bank drafts of Rs. 4,50,000/- but respondent No.2 refused to accept the same. Thereafter, again the petitioners tried to settle the matter amicably and, as such, an agreement was entered into between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 on 10.11.2009, in which it was settled that petitioner No.1 has given bank draft of Rs. 2 lakhs in the name of Daman Jot Singh and another draft of Rs. 2 lakhs in the name of Taranjot Kaur, in addition to cash amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- to respondent No.2. It was agreed at that time that respondent No. 2 shall withdraw all the cases filed against petitioner No.1 and shall got the FIR quashed. On notice of motion having been issued, respondent No.2 appeared and filed her reply, admitting the factum of lodging of the FIR against the petitioners and also factum of the compromise/agreement. However, she pleaded that gold ornaments, detailed in the reply, were not given to her and are still with the petitioners and those be got returned to her. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. A dispute has been raised by respondent No.2 only regarding return of the gold ornaments, which, according to her, are still with the petitioners and are required to be returned to her. This petition for quashing Crl. Misc. No. M- 32795 of 2009 3 of the FIR has been made on the basis of the agreement dated 10.11.2009 which was entered into by petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. A perusal thereof shows that this agreement was entered into by the parties, in view of the FIR, which was got lodged by respondent No.2. Whole of the matter was settled between the parties. The report of the Investigating Officer was called for regarding genuineness of the agreement. After recording the statement of the parties, he has submitted his report that this agreement was duly entered into between the parties and is genuine one. No dispute between the parties was left open in this compromise and the matter in dispute was duly settled. Now respondent No. 2 cannot raise the plea that the gold ornaments are with the petitioners and are required to be returned to her. On the basis of the agreement, so entered between the parties, the FIR and the subsequent proceedings are liable to be quashed. I order accordingly. The petition is disposed of accordingly. April 26, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE