Criminal Misc. No.M-31939 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-31939 of 2011 Date of Decision : 14th December, 2011 Kirandip Singh Ghumman And another .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present : Mr. D. S. Gurna, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. R. S. Rawat, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 3 Mr. Rakesh Bakshi, Advocate respondent No.4. * * * * L.N.MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Kirandip Singh Ghumman and his wife Amritpal Kaur (wrongly mentioned as Amrit Kaur in FIR) have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr. P.C.), for quashing FIR No.136 dated 14.09.2011 (Annexure P-1) under Section 420 IPC registered at Police Station Morinda, District Roopnagar, in view of compromise (Annexure P-2) effected with respondent No.4-complainant Dharminder Singh. Learned counsel for respondent No.4-complainant on instructions from respondent No.4, who is stated to be present in-person in the Court, states that parties have effected compromise (Annexure P-2) and pursuant thereto, respondent No.4 has received agreed amount of Rs.4,50,000/- from the petitioners by way of bank draft and therefore, respondent No.4 has no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. Criminal Misc. No.M-31939 of 2011 -2- I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 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 was so held by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2007(2) Law Herald (Punjab & Haryana) 2225. In the instant case, grievance of the complainant was that petitioners had taken money from him for sending him to USA but he was not sent to USA nor money was returned to him. As per compromise, petitioners have returned the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- to the complainant and therefore, the complainant is left with no grievance against the petitioners. The claim of the complainant has been satisfied. It was personal grievance of the complainant which stands redressed. Accordingly, it is a fit case in which the FIR should be quashed. In view of the aforesaid, instant petition is allowed and impugned FIR Annexure P-1 is quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. ( L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 14th December, 2011 'raj'