IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.3900 -M of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : MARCH 18, 2010 RAJINDER KUMAR & ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl.AG, Haryana. Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for quashing of case FIR No.494 dated 23.10.2008 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar (Annexure P-1), on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there was a misunderstanding. Respondent No.2 had given Power of Attorney in favour of petitioner No.1, which had been cancelled. Petitioner No.1, however, sold the land on the basis of the Power of Attorney. The petitioners have, now, settled all the disputes with respondent No.2 by way of amicable settlement. Compromise deed has been drawn and executed on Criminal Misc. No.3900 -M of 2010 2 18.2.2009 (Annexure P-2). Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that both the parties are related. The disputes have been settled by way of amicable settlement and, therefore continuance of the proceedings shall not be in the interest of peace and harmony in the family and society of the petitioners as also respondent No.2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contends that Kamlesh Kumari ( respondent No.2) , as identified by him, is present in court. The disputes, indeed, have been settled by way of compromise. The compromise deed (Annexure P-2) and the affidavit sworn by respondent No.2 (Annexure P-3), as also their contents, have been endorsed. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. FIR No.494 dated 23.10.2008 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar (Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed. March 18, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?