Crl. Misc. No.M-36586 of 2010 (O&M) and other connected case 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Crl. Misc. No.M-36586 of 2010 (O&M) Varinder Singh and others ....Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and another ....Respondents 2. Crl. Misc. No.M-36191 of 2010 (O&M) Baljinder Singh and another ....Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and another ....Respondents Decided on : 15-09-2011 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners in Crl.Misc.no.M- 36586 of 2010 and for respondent no.2 in Crl.Misc.no.M- 36191 of 2010 Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab Mr.B.S.Baath, Advocate for the respondent no.2 in Crl.Misc.no.M-36586 of 2010 and for petitioners in Crl.Misc.No.M-36191 of 2010 MAHESH GROVER, J This order will dispose of two connected Crl.Misc.petitions bearing nos. M-36586 of 2010 and M-36191 of 2010. Petition bearing Crl.Misc.No.M-36586 of 2010 has been filed praying for quashing of the FIR no. 75 dated 3.7.2010 registered under Sections 306/34 IPC at P.S. Amargarh District Sangrur by stating that the parties have effected a compromise. The petitioner no.1 Varinder Singh Crl. Misc. No.M-36586 of 2010 (O&M) and other connected case 2 was facing allegations under Section 304 B IPC. It is now submitted before this Court that the compromise has not been effected between the parties and thus a prayer for withdrawal of the petition has been made. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 states that the petitioner had been able to obtain a concession of bail on the strength of mis- representation that a compromise had been effected between the parties which fact he now himself admits to be wrong. It is stated that the Court of competent jurisdiction was indeed influenced by this factum of compromise projected before it and since this fact has been turned to be wrong the concession of bail should be withdrawn from the petitioner. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that if the petitioner has influenced the course of proceedings in an application for bail then respondent no.2 is at liberty to move an appropriate application for an adequate remedy with a prayer to nullify the benefit and in the eventuality of such an application being moved the same be decided in accordance with law. In so far as the instant petition is concerned a simple prayer for withdrawal of the petition has been made which prayer singularly is not opposed by respondent no.2. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is permitted to be withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. Likewise Crl.Misc.No.M-36191 of 2010 inter se between the parties but pertaining to FIR no. 68 dated 17.7.2010 registered under Sections 452/323/148/149 IPC which was filed with a plea that proceedings be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. Having regard to the aforesaid, when the parties are still at Crl. Misc. No.M-36586 of 2010 (O&M) and other connected case 3 logger heads and dispute the compromise, this petition is also permitted to be withdrawn. Hence, Crl.Misc.No.M-36191 of 2010 is also dismissed as withdrawn. September 15, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge