IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 14476 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.11.2011 Nazar Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab for the State. Mr. Vikram Rathore, Advocate for respondent No. 2. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. Prayer is for quashing the FIR No. 180 dated 20.09.2006 registered against the petitioner under Sections 406 and 420 IPC at Police Station Sahnewal, Ludhiana on the basis of compromise. Copy of the compromise is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2. As per the allegations contained in the FIR, the petitioner had agreed to sale the property and give the sale proceeds to the complainant as the property was wrongly mutated on the name of the petitioner. As per the allegations, the petitioner had sold the land for ` 4,80,000/- and kept the whole amount and, accordingly, the FIR was lodged against the petitioner by the complainant. On the intervention of respectables of the area, the dispute has now been amicably resolved between the parties. It was only a case of discharge of liability arising out of the sale of this land, Crl. Misc. No. M- 14476 of 2011 (O&M) -2- which perhaps would have been now discharged by the petitioner. The parties have compromised the dispute and the copy of the written settlement is on record as Annexure P-2. Notice of the petitioner was issued. Mr. Vikram Rathore, Advocate appears for the respondent. As per the directions issued by this Court on 11.05.2011, the parties have appeared before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana for recording the statements. The statements of the petitioner as well as the complainant have, accordingly, been recorded. The parties have stood by the compromise. Counsel for the respondent confirms before me, today, that the parties indeed have compromised the dispute and have settled the differences amicably. The State, however, points out that there is another FIR pending against the petitioner for an offence under Section 380. This FIR, however, has no concern with the present dispute. The present dispute, apparently, has arisen on account of liability which the petitioner has undertaken to discharge but did not do so. Once that liability has been discharged and the money has been paid to the respondent, it will be futile to permit the criminal proceedings to continue against the petitioner. The case, thus, is made out for ending this criminal proceedings. In this regard, support can be made from the Full Bench decision of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and others 2007(3) RCR (Cri.) 1052. The petition is allowed. FIR No. 180 dated 20.09.2006 registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC at Police Station Crl. Misc. No. M- 14476 of 2011 (O&M) -3- Sahnewal, Ludhiana and all subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed. November 25, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE