Crl. Misc. No. M-5026 of 2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-5026 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 30, 2011 Ashok Kumar ............................................. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ................. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Onkar Singh Walia, DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr. A.S.Sullar, Advocate for respondent No.2. ... RITU BAHRI, J. The petitioner is convicted under Sections 420, 419 read with Section 120-B, 467, 468, 471 IPC in FIR No. 24 dated 25.1.1994 registered at Police Station Ambala City and vide order dated 8.5.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala Cantt. he has been sentenced as under:- Crl. Misc. No. M-5026 of 2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] Under Section Sentence 420 IPC RI for two years and to pay a fine of `1,000/-. In case of default in making the payment of fine, shall further undergo RI for three months. 419 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC RI for six months and to pay a fine of `200/-. In case of default in making the payment of fine, shall further undergo RI for 7 days. 467 IPC RI for three years and to pay a fine of `1,000/-. In case of default in making the payment of fine, shall further undergo RI for six months. 468 IPC RI for one year and to pay a fine of `500/-. In case of default in making the payment of fine, shall further undergo RI for one month. 471 IPC RI for six months and to pay a fine of `300/-. In case of default in making the payment of fine, shall further undergo RI for seven days. Mr. A.S.Sullar, learned counsel for respondent No.2, has stated that at the stage of appeal a settlement has been arrived at between the parties and they have decided to bury their past differences. Compromise dated 1.2.2011 (Annexure P-3) and affidavit of the complainant dated 4.2.2011 (Annexure P4) has been filed. Reference is being made to a decision dated 17.8.2010 in RSA No. 3209 of 2007 (Annexure P-5) between the parties where they have compromised and the RSA has been dismissed as withdrawn. As per the compromise (Annexure P-3) the parties have been litigating since 1981 on civil as well as criminal side. On the basis of a complaint made by Kuldip Singh the present criminal case was registered and FIR No. 24 dated 25.1.1994 under Sections 406/420/467/468/471 IPC was registered against the petitioner. As per the Crl. Misc. No. M-5026 of 2011 (O&M) [ 3 ] compromise the RSA has been withdrawn and the parties have agreed not to pursue any criminal appeal pending in the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Ambala. Affidavit of Kuldip Singh (complainant) is Annexure P-4 and in view of the fact that the petitioner Ashok Kumar has withdrawn the RSA pending in the High Court in view of the compromise effected between the parties the complainant has no objection to quashing of this FIR No. 24 dated 15.1.1994. Mr. Surinder Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has vehemently argued that this complaint was registered on a recommendation made by the Sessions Judge, Ambala, to register an FIR against Ashok Kumar. He has sought that National Insurance Company be impleaded as a party and the criminal miscellaneous for disposal of the appeal on the basis of compromise should be dismissed. Criminal miscellaneous No.29094 of 2011 is dismissed on the ground that the National Insurance Company was not a party to the criminal proceedings initiated way back in the year 1994 and at this stage cannot be allowed to intervene in a dispute which has been amicably settled between the parties who are litigating since 1981. After going through the facts of the case this Court is of the view that the compromise effected between the Crl. Misc. No. M-5026 of 2011 (O&M) [ 4 ] parties is genuine and applying the ratio of the Supreme Court judgments in Smt. Rumi Dhar v. State of W.B. And Anr. AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2195 and Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another 2008 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 910 as well as judgment of this Court in Raman Kumar Verma and another v. Smt. Lyuba Verma and another 2008 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 696 and in Anup Singh v. State of Haryana and another (Crl. Misc. No. 5781 of 2011 decided on 21.3.2011) wherein permission has been granted to compound the offence under Section 468 IPC, permission is granted to the parties to compound their offences and a direction is given to the Appellate Court to dispose of the appeal in view of the permission granted. Disposed of accordingly. 30.5.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE