Criminal Misc.No.M-7599 of 2011(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No. M-7599 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 27, 2011 Harpreet Singh Oberoi ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr.G.S.Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.J.S,Bhullar, Assistant Adv. General, Punjab Hardyal Singh – respondent No.2, complainant in person. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Harpreet Singh Oberoi – petitioner, by filing this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has sought quashing of First Information Report (for short 'FIR) No.216 dated August 06th, 2005, (Annexure P1) registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') in Police Station Civil Lines, District Batala, on the ground that Hardyal Singh – complainant/ respondent No.2 has compromised the matter with him, as is evident from order dated July 25th, 2009 (Annexure P3) passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- “3. I have heard the parties in a joint session and several proposals came up for consideration. However, the parties have arrived at amicable settlement on the following terms:- (1)Both the parties have settled their claim. (2)The first party has agreed to withdraw the present complaint and the second party has agreed to compound the offence in a State case pending between the parties in the Court of Mrs.Harpreet Kaur, Ld.JMIC, Batala, qua FIR No.216 dated 6.8.2005 under Sections 406, 420 IPC, PS Civil Lines, Batala Criminal Misc.No.M-7599 of 2011(O&M) [ 2 ] registered at the instance of the second party. (3)Both the parties have undertaken to remain bound by the settlement of terms.” Hardyal Singh – complainant, while appearing in person before this Court, has stated that per the settlement between the parties, the petitioner had to pay him an amount of Rs.4 lacs out of Rs.5 lacs, which he did not pay. So, the question of compromising the matter with the petitioner with regard to criminal case registered against him, does not arise. It has also been stated by Hardyal Singh at bar that in case petitioner pays him an amount of Rs.4 lacs, he is still ready to compromise the matter. In view of this, there is no ground to quash the FIR in question. Petition dismissed. September 27, 2011 ( NAWAB SINGH ) `gian' JUDGE