High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/25166/2021dismissed

Satpal Singh And ORS v. State Of Haryana And Another

2021-10-05Mr. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill2 pages

CRM-M No. 25166 of 2021 -1In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CRM-M No. 25166 of 2021 Date of Decision: 05.10.2021 Satpal and others ......Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. Kawalpreet Singh Virk, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Randeep S. Khaira, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Aryavart, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

**** HARNARESH SINGH GILL , J. (ORAL) Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 202 dated 29.8.2020 registered under Sections 420, 506 and Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC (added subsequently), Police Station Narwana Sadar, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioners, on the basis of compromise deed and affidavit dated 18.9.2020 (Annexures P-3 and P-4, respectively) arrived at between the parties. Mr. Aryavart, Advocate has filed his power of attorney on behalf of respondent No. 2, with 'No Objection' from the earlier counsel, which is taken on record.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 points out that as per the compromise, the petitioners were supposed to pay Rs. 20.00 lacs but they had only paid Rs. 11.00 lacs and also gave a post date cheque of Rs. 2.00 GURPREET SINGH 2021.10.07 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M No. 25166 of 2021 -2lacs but refused to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 7.00 lacs. Vide order dated 06.7.2021, the trial Court was directed to record the statements of the parties with regard to the genuineness and validity of the compromise.

In compliance thereof, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, has submitted the report dated 20.8.2021, as per which, complainant-Dilbag had appeared before the Court and stated that the matter was not compromised with Satpal (petitioner No. 1) as Satpal (petitioner No. 1) has got the affidavit from him qua the compromise but did not pay any amount. As per the report, the matter has not been compromised yet. Keeping in view the above and the fact that the petitioners have not complied with the terms and conditions of the compromise dated 18.9.2020 (Annexure P-3), no ground for quashing of the FIR, on the basis of compromise is made out.

The petition is dismissed.

(HARNARESH SINGH GILL) JUDGE October 05, 2021 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No GURPREET SINGH 2021.10.07 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh