Crl. Misc. No. M-5169 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-5169 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 1.8.2011 Satnam Singh & another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. R.S. Pandher, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ranbir Singh Rawat, AAG, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.25 dated 10th March, 2008, under Sections 406 & 420 IPC, registered at police station Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to compromise, Annexure P-2 and submits that in view of the same, FIR in question deserves to be quashed. Learned State counsel has filed reply by way of affidavit of Dy. Superintendent of Police, Circle Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib. He submits that the present petition has been preferred by the complainant Satnam Singh and one surety of the accused, namely Pal Singh. According to him, accused Dara Khan has been absconding from the proceedings since 27th July, 2009. He submits that even a perusal of Crl. Misc. No. M-5169 of 2011 2 compromise, Annexure P-2 shows that same was not entered into with Dara Khan but with some person named Bahadur Ali. He has, thus, opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It is evident that compromise, Annexure P-2 is between Satnam Singh and Bahadur Ali. Dara Khan is not party thereto. According to stand of the State, accused absented himself from the proceedings on 27th July, 2009 and thereafter never appeared. The present petition has not been preferred by the accused but by the complainant and a person who stood surety for accused Dara Khan. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in this petition. No interference is called for under inherent jurisdiction of this court. Dismissed. The parties shall, however, be at liberty to raise their pleas before the court below at the appropriate stage. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 1.8.2011 'rajpal'