Crl. Misc. No. M-2089 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-2089 of 2008 Date of Decision : August 18, 2009 Jai Parkash Sohar and another .... Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Ms. Monika Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab for respondent no. 1. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate for respondent no. 2. Mr. Abhineet Taneja, Advocate for respondent no. 3. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Jai Parkash Sohar and his son Parveen Kumar have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr. P. C.) for quashing of FIR No.357 dated 09.12.2004, under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Ludhiana, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Crl. Misc. No. M-2089 of 2008 2 Petitioner no.1 mortgaged his property with State Bank of Patiala – respondent no.3 for taking loan. Petitioner no.1 thereafter sold the said property to his two sons Parveen Kumar – petitioner no.2 and Pardeep Kumar (non-petitioner), who further sold the same to respondent no.2 – T. R. Sharma with the assurance that there was no encumbrance on the property. However, respondent no. 2 later on learnt that property stood mortgaged with respondent no. 3. Thereupon respondent no.2 lodged the impugned FIR. Bank loan has since been cleared and the property is now free from mortgage. Respondent no. 3 has filed short reply that loan account of the Bank stands adjusted and therefore, the Bank does not want to proceed against the petitioners. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 states that out of some amount, which was payable by respondent no.2 to Pardeep Kumar (non- petitioner) out of sale consideration, respondent no.2 has paid Rs.2.5 lacs approximately to respondent no.3 – Bank to clear the loan account and therefore, respondent no.2 should not be liable to pay the said amount to Pardeep Kumar at some subsequent stage. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions from petitioner no.2, who is also present in person in the Court, states that if at some subsequent stage, non-petitioner Pardeep Kumar demands the aforesaid amount from respondent no.2, petitioners shall be liable to pay the same. In view of this undertaking, learned counsel for respondent no.2 states that respondent no.2 has no objection to the quashing of impugned FIR as against the petitioners. In appropriate cases, FIR can be quashed on the basis of compromise by exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are not compoundable. It has been so held by a Full Bench of this Court in case of Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported as 2007 (3) Law Herald (Punjab and Haryana) 2225. Crl. Misc. No. M-2089 of 2008 3 In the instant case, bank loan has been cleared and mortgage of the property stands redeemed and now, respondent no.2 has clear title of the property. It is, therefore, a fit case in which FIR should be quashed. In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is allowed and impugned FIR No.357 dated 09.12.2004, under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Ludhiana is quashed, as against the petitioners only, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. August 18, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE