CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.27164 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 27, 2008 Manjit Kaur and another .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr.H.N.S.Gill, Advocate, for the petitioners. (In Crl. Misc.M No.27164 of 2008) Mr. H. S. Dhandi, Advocate, for the petitioners. (In Crl. Misc.M No.24618 of 2008) Mr. Mehardeep Singh, AAG, Punjab, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) This order will dispose of two Criminal Misc.M Nos.27164 of 2008 (Manjit Kaur and another Vs. State of Punjab and another) and 24618 of 2008 (Jasbir Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab and others). In the first petition, the prayer is for quashing of FIR CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.27164 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: No.259 dated 26.9.2007, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. This FIR has been lodged by respondent No.2, Jasbir Singh. It is alleged that Dhanna Singh agreed to cell 3-1/2 acres of his land to the petitioners i.e. Manjit Kaur and Kamalpreet Kaur. An amount of Rs.40 lacs was given through two cheques of Rs.20 lacs each. A sale deed was executed by Gurcharan Singh, attorney of Dhanna Singh. The amount of Rs.40 lacs was deposited by Gurcharan Singh in the joint account with Dhanna Singh. Out of this amount, Rs.11 lacs were drawn on 18.5.2006 and Rs.3 lacs on 24.5.2006. Subsequently, it was revealed to the petitioners that the sale deed executed on 6.4.2007 and 23.4.2007 qua the same land in favour of Dhanna Singh was fictitious. It is further alleged that Dhanna Singh subsequently got the land transferred back on his name by getting the petitioners impersonated for this purpose. This primarily perhaps was done as the prices of land had shot up. Jasbir Singh, respondent No.2, lodged an FIR against the petitioners with an allegation that Gurcharan Singh had a fake power of attorney, on the basis of which, he executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioners. He accordingly pleaded that his father-in- law, Dhanna Singh, was cheated and defrauded. Manjit Kaur and Kamalpreet Kaur also lodged a complaint against Jasbir Singh and Ram Rattan under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, alleging that a sum of Rs.40 lacs has been taken by Dhanna Singh and subsequently he has got the land transferred in his name through a sale by getting Manjit Kaur and Kamalpreet Kaur impersonated. During the pendency of both the FIRs, the parties have CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.27164 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: reached a compromise on the intervention of respectables. Accordingly, two separate petitions have been filed for quashing of FIR No.259 dated 26.9.2007 lodged by Jasbir Singh and FIR No.156 dated 3.7.2007 lodged on behalf of Manjit Kaur and Kamalpreet Kaur through their attorney Charanjit Singh. Copy of the compromise, which is common in both the cases, is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2 in both the petitions. As per the compromise, Manjit Kaur and Kamalpreet Kaur would execute a sale deed in favour of Dhanna Singh, who would return the money, which is accepted by Manjit Kaur and Kamalpreet Kaur. Jasbir Singh, complainant in FIR No.259, is present before the Court. He confirms that parties have reached a compromise and he would not have any objection in case FIR registered at his instance is quashed. Charanjit Singh, attorney holder of Manjit Kaur and Kamalpreet Kaur, who has lodged this FIR on their behalf, is present and confirm that indeed this compromise is reached between the parties and he would not have any objection in case the FIR lodged by him on behalf of Manjit Kaur and Kamalpreet Kaur is quashed. It appears to be a civil dispute concerning sale of land in which the parties have reached a compromise. There does not seem to be any need to allow this prosecution to continue. Even otherwise, as per the Full Bench decision of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others), reported as 2007 (3) Law Herald (P&H) (FB) 2225, there are no fetters before the Court in quashing the FIR on the basis of a compromise. No useful purpose will be served in allowing the proceedings to continue. CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.27164 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: Both the petitions are, thus, allowed. FIR Nos.259 dated 26.9.2007, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and 156 dated 3.7.2008, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. November 27 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE