Criminal Misc. No. M-4101 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Misc. No. M-4101 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 5.5.2009 Jaspal Singh and Another …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for respondent No.2. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 180 dated 7.7.2008 registered at Police Station Focal Point, Ludhiana, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 & 471 IPC. Satbir Singh Kohli had lodged the above said FIR which has been annexed with this petition has Annexure P1. In the FIR it has been stated that complainant-respondent No.2 Satbir Singh Kohli was partner with Jaspal Singh, petitioner No.1. However, in gross breach of trust, Jaspal Singh, petitioner No.1 hatched conspiracy in collusion with Criminal Misc. No. M-4101 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Satwinder Singh, petitioner No.2 and embezzled the funds of the partnership concern. It was submitted that offence of cheating and forgery was committed and the funds were diverted to the benefit of the accused/petitioners. In the present case, quashing has been sought on the basis of compromise deed executed between the parties. Compromise deed has been annexed as Annexure P2. On the last date of hearing, father of the complainant was present in the Court. He submitted that terms & conditions No.2 to 7 of the compromise have not been complied with by the accused/petitioners. Therefore, on 20.4.2009, the following order was passed:- “In the present case quashing of the FIR has been sought on the basis of compromise Annexure P-2. Mr. Gurcharan Dass has stated that petitioners have not complied with Condition Nos.2 to 7 of the compromise. Counsel for the petitioners state that they have complied with all the conditions of compromise. This is a disputed question of fact. Complainant cannot act cleverly after having Rs.9 lacs and delivery of a car. One cannot have the cake and eat it too. To controvert this, Mr. Gurcharan Dass has stated that respondent-complainant is ready to return Rs.9 lacs with 9% interest within 15 days from today along with the car. Statement made by Mr. Gurcharan Dass on instructions of Harbhajan Criminal Misc. No. M-4101 of 2009 (O&M) 3 Singh Kohli father of Surjit Singh Kohli is accepted. Let the amount of Rs.9 lacs by way of bank draft and the car be brought in this Court. Adjourned to 5.5.2009”. Today Criminal Misc. No. 22368 of 2009 has been filed for modification of order dated 20.4.2009 in which it has been stated that complainant is now satisfied that the documents have been handed over to the Investigating Officer and he will proceed with the compromise arrived between the parties. Complainant-respondent No.2 Satbir Singh Kohli is present in the Court. He has been identified by his counsel Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate. Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate, has stated that the differences between the parties have been sorted out and they have amicably resolved to facilitate quashing of FIR. He further submitted that complainant-respondent No.2 prays that the FIR be quashed as the complainant will not be in a financial position to return Rs.9,00,000/- which was received by him as part of the compromise. A written statement has been also filed by the State of Punjab, by way of affidavit of Balraj Singh Gill, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Ludhiana City, Ludhiana. It has been stated therein as under:- “...Subsequently, both the parties and especially respondent No.2 submitted the attested affidavit to the I.O. along with other documents substantiating therein that the matter stands compromised between the parties and the complainant does not want to Criminal Misc. No. M-4101 of 2009 (O&M) 4 pursue the case. Under these circumstances, the opinion from the Ld. DA/Legal was sought as to whether the offence under Section 420 IPC is compoundable or not. Consequently, the Ld. DA/Legal has opined that Section 420 IPC is compoundable but it is only by the Court and accordingly opined to complete the investigation and to submit the challan. Now the investigation of the case is going on. Thus, the present petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be dismissed”. It is essentially a civil dispute. Since the parties have arrived at a compromise, therefore, the prayer for quashing of FIR can be considered. It has been held by Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2007(3) Recent Criminal Reports 1052 that compromise not only promotes peace in the society but also saves parties from litigation. In view of the law laid down in Kulwinder Singh’s case (supra) and keeping in view the compromise arrived at between the parties, present petition is accepted and impugned FIR along with all consequential proceedings is quashed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge May 5, 2009 “DK”