CRM No. M 890 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 890 of 2010 Date of decision: 10.03.2010 Gurinder Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Liaqat Ali, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure of Code for quashing of FIR No. 67 dated 08.04.2008 under Sections 420/120- B IPC registered at Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana against the present petitioner. As per the prosecution version, the petitioner executed an agreement to sell with the complainant for the sale of land measuring 21 kanals situated in the revenue estate of villages Bholapur and Mangla Nichi, Tehsil and District Ludhiana vide sale deeds Annexure P-3 and P-4. CRM No. M 890 of 2010 2 Thereafter, the complainant/respondent No. 2 lodged FIR No. 67 dated 08.04.2008 under Sections 420/120-B IPC at Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana against the petitioner and his brother to the effect that they had not executed the agreement to sell on the date fixed and failed to execute the same in his favour. It is stated that, later on, a compromise was effected between the parties. As per the compromise, which has been placed on record as Annexure P-2, the petitioner had executed two sale deed in favour of the complainant/respondent No. 2 and his associates. One of the sale deed was for the land measuring 18 kanals 12-2/11 marlas and other one was for the land measuring 3 kanal 10/2/3 marlas, both the land are situated in village Bholapur and Mangla Nichi, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. Meanwhile, one of the brothers of the petitioner died and his legal heirs also executed the sale deed in favour of the complainant/respondent No. 2 and his associates. Harjeet Singh, brother of the petitioner also executed sale deed. On the basis of the compromise, Harjeet Singh and other co accused of the petitioner filed CRM M 22401 of 2008 in this Court for quashing of the FIR. This High Court was pleased to quash the FIR and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereto vide order dated 28.08.2009. The solitary allegation in the FIR is that the petitioner and other co-accused had not executed the sale seed in favour of respondent No. 2. No offence can be said to be made out against the petitioner in view of the fact that subsequently under the terms of the compromise, the petitioner and his brother duly executed the sale deeds in favour of respondent No.2 and his associates. CRM No. M 890 of 2010 3 Complainant has been impleaded as respondent No.2. As per the report of the Registry, respondent No. 2 stands served. However, no one appears on behalf of respondent No. 2 in spite of service. It is obvious that respondent No. 2 does not wish to contest the present petition. Reply has been filed by respondent No. 1 stating therein that the local police has already prepared the untraced report. In para 2 of the said reply, it is stated that:- “That earlier co-accused of the petitioner namely Harjit Singh had filed a petition before this Hon'ble Court bearing Criminal Misc. No. 22401 of 2009 for quashing the present FIR and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harbans Lal vide his order dated 28.08.2009 quashed the FIR qua the co accused of the petitioners only. However, in view of the compromise effected between the petitioner and the complainant/respondent No.2, the local police has already prepared an untrace report qua the present petitioner and shortly the same will be presented before the ld. Trial Court for acceptance. The main dispute between the parties was with regard to non-execution of sale deed, less front of the land and loan on the land which the complainant had purchased from the petitioner and his brothers but now the parties have compromised the matter and sale deeds of the said land have also been executed by the petitioner and his brothers in favour of the complainant and now both the parties are satisfied.” CRM No. M 890 of 2010 4 In view of the fact that the sale deeds already stand executed in favour of the respondents No. 2, the compromise was effected between the parties, the FIR qua the other co-accused has already been quashed on the basis of said compromise and the complainant/respondent No. 2 has not put in appearance in spite of service, it is evident that respondent No. 2 has no grievance and the parties are fully satisfied. Even otherwise, the sale deeds having been executed in favour of respondent No. 2, no offence can be said to be made out under Section 420/120-B of Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner. Accordingly, FIR No. 67 dated 08.04.2008 under Sections 420/120-B IPC registered at Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana and further proceedings arising out of the same qua the present petitioner are quashed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge March 10, 2010 mohan