IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc No. M-6564 of 2009 Date of decision : 25.05.2009 Ashok Mehta ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana and another ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Ms. Meenakshi Dogra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Bhutani, AAG Haryana. Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for respondent No. 2. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition for quashing on the ground that parties have arrived at a compromise during the pendency of proceedings pursuant to registration of FIR No. 288/07 dated 19.10.2007 at Police Station Faridabad Kotwali under Sections 406/420/506 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties had agreed to settle the dispute and it was decided that petitioner would pay Rs. 17.00 lacs to the complainant. According to the counsel a draft of Rs. 10.00 lacs was handed over at the time proceedings were pending before the Apex Court. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 does not dispute this factual contention made by the petitioner. He has further submitted that pursuant to the payment made following order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- “ORDER Learned counself or the State of Haryana is not present. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of petitioner that the parties Crl. Misc No. M-6564 of 2009 -2- have compromised the matter amongst themselves. Accordingly, the order passed on 11.02.2009 and as modified on 17th October, 2008, is made absolute. We, however, modify the directions contained therein to the extent that the condition for appearing before the investigating officer shall no longer be applicable, but the petitioner shall make himself available to the Investigating officer, as and when called upon to do so. The special leave petitions are disposed of accordingly.” Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that two drafts for the balance amount of Rs. 7 lacs have been brought to the Court today and have been handed over to the complainant-respondent No. 2. In toto, three demand drafts have handed over to respondent No. 2 till date. Photocopies of the three drafts i.e. Rs. 10 lacs, 05 lacs and 02 lacs are annexed to the petition as Annexure P-2 (colly). Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has referred to affidavit of complainant-respondent No. 2 which is already on record and which reads thus:- “6. That the contents of Para No. 6 of the petition are admitted being a matter of record that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner and the deponent- complainant. It is also a matter of fact that the petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to the deponent-complainant and in addition to the above said amount, an amount of Rs. 05 lacs has been paid by the co-accused Mr. Anil Nagar-property Crl. Misc No. M-6564 of 2009 -3- dealer. It is also a matter of fact that a draft of Rs. 10 lacs has been handed over by the petitioner to the deponent-complainant in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 8. That the contents of Para no. 8 of the petition are admitted to the extent that the matter has been amicable settled between the parties and no other issue is required to be settled. Rest of para is wrong and hence denied.” Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has further submitted that complainant is present in Court and has been duly identified by him. He has further stated that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. The compromise is in the interest of the parties and after the matter has been resolved by an amicable settlement, no useful purpose is likely to be served with continuance of the criminal proceedings. In view of the above, the present FIR and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed in the light of the decision of Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR(Crl.), 1052. Resultantly the present petition is allowed, the FIR in question and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. 25.05.2009 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE