Criminal Misc. No. M-10183 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Misc. No. M-10183 of 2009 Date of Decision: 5.5.2009 Narinder Kumar Khulla and Another …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1-State. Mr. G.S. Rawat, Advocate for respondent No.2. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that case FIR No. 52 dated 23.2.2005 registered at Police Station City, Batala, District Gurdaspur, under Section 420 IPC (Annexure P2) and complaint titled as “Harwant Singh Khera v. Narinder Khullar” under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (Annexure P1) along with all subsequent proceedings be quashed. Quashing of FIR (Annexure P2) and complaint (Annexure P1) has been sought on the basis of affidavit (Annexure P4) sworn by respondent No.2 Harwant Singh Khera in which factum of compromise Criminal Misc. No. M-10183 of 2009 2 has been pleaded. In complaint (Annexure P1), respondent No.2 Harwant Singh Khera has stated that accused was given Rs.7,50,000/- for providing permanent visa of Italy. The accused failed to send son of complainant to Italy, therefore, they issued a cheque amounting to Rs.7,50,000/- in favour of the complainant/respondent No.2. Since the complainant was duped of Rs.7,50,000/- on pretext of sending his son abroad, an FIR bearing No. 52 dated 23.2.2005 was also registered against the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. No. M- 41464 of 2005 decided on 26.2.2008 whereby complaint (Annexure P1) and FIR (Annexure P2) were clubbed to be tried together. Notice of motion was issued. Mr. G.S. Rawat, Advocate, has caused appearance for Harwant Singh Khera, respondent No.2. He has filed reply, which has been taken on record. In the reply, respondent No.2 admitted the factum of compromise. Respondent No.2 Harwant Singh Khera is present in the Court. He has been identified by his counsel Mr. G.S. Rawat, Advocate. Mr. Rawat, on instructions from respondent No.2 Harwant Singh Khera, has stated that petitioner has returned the amount, therefore, a compromise has been arrived. He further stated that the complainant do not intent to pursue the impugned FIR and the complaint, therefore, the same be quashed. It has been held by Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2007(3) Recent Criminal Reports 1052 that Criminal Misc. No. M-10183 of 2009 3 compromise not only promotes peace in the society but also saves parties from litigation. In view of the law laid down in Kulwinder Singh’s case (supra) and keeping in view the compromise arrived at between the parties, present petition is accepted. Impugned FIR (Annexure P2) and complaint (Annexure P1) along with all consequential proceedings are quashed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge May 5, 2009 “DK”