Crl.Misc.No.M-7249 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-7249 of 2009. Decided on: March 15, 2010. Muni Lal and others .. Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and another .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.S.S.Rangi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Arshvinder Singh, DAG, Punjab. Mr.H.S.Dhandi, Advocate, for respondent No.2. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioners seek quashing of complaint filed by Harinder Singh, lodged with the police alleging that Harinder Singh had lodged an FIR pertaining to the same incident but the same was found to be false by the police vide Annexure P-5. The complaint Annexure P-1, filed on the same allegations against the petitioners and 3-4 other persons is false and concocted. Counsel for the petitioners submits that Harinder Singh had entered into a compromise with the remaining accused mentioned in the complaint Annexure P-14, vide a compromise Annexure P-7, in which it has been admitted that there was a partnership between Radha Rani (accused No.5), and the complainant Harinder Singh regarding an Electronics shop being run in the name of M/s Amar Electronics and in the said partnership there were three partners i.e., Radha Rani to the extent of . . . 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-7249 of 2009 50 per cent, Harinder Singh to the extent of 35 per cent and Muni Lal, the petitioner. On account of said controversy, some dispute had taken place between the parties and an FIR dated 15.11.2004, under Sections 354, 323, 506/34 IPC, was registered at Police Station,Khamano, at the instance of Radhan Rani. Counsel further submits that it is an admitted fact that Muni Lal was also a partner and dispute has arisen on account of partnership. The complaint may be quashed on the ground that the matter has been partly compromised with three persons named in the FIR Annexure P-3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners and I am of the opinion that the matter having been compromised qua three accused named in the complaint, is not a sufficient ground to quash the FIR but that circumstance is indicative of the fact that there is some falsity in the complaint. It will not be appropriate for this Court to enter into the niceties of the trial in view of the truthfulness of the complaint, at this stage. This case does not seem to fall under the parameters laid down in case State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604. Taking into consideration, the probable defence which the petitioners have got in their favour, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition by ordering that the trial will be concluded within a period of one year after the receipt of a copy of the order. It is ordered that in case the petitioners move an application for exemption from personal appearance during trial, it will be permitted subject to any conditions imposed by the trial Court. It will also be open to the trial Court to exempt personal appearance of the petitioners and record the evidence as per the provisions of Section 273 Cr.P.C. In . . . 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-7249 of 2009 the presence of counsel for the petitioners after exempting their personal appearance. It is made clear that the petitioners will be required to put in appearance as and when required by the trial Court without making any excuse. Disposed of. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE March 15, 2010. rka . . . 3