- (1.) By this judgment, both the petitions bearing Criminal Misc. No.M-33979 of 2013 and Criminal Misc. No.M-35424 of 2013 shall be disposed of as the same have been filed for quashing of FIR No.81 dated 05.03.2009 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Tripri Town, District Patiala on the basis of compromise. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts are being derived from Criminal Misc. No.M-33979 of 2013.
(2.) Criminal Misc. No.M-33979 of 2013 has been filed by petitioners-Gurinder Singh, Gurinder Kaur and Surjit Kaur and Criminal Misc. No.M-35424 of 2013 has been filed by petitioner-Raminder Singh for quashing of said FIR and all other consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR on the basis of compromise dated 15.05.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 19.10.2007 with respondent No.2 for sale of his House No.8-A, Baba Shri Chand Marg, Preet Nagar, Sirhind Road, Patiala. Subsequently, some dispute arose between the parties and the present FIR was registered against the petitioners. Respondent no.2 also filed a suit for specific performance before the Civil Court. However, during pendency of the Civil Suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC was decided against petitioner No.1, which was challenged by way of filing Civil Revision No.3025 of 2011. Thereafter, a compromise was arrived at between the parties and the Civil Revision was also disposed of on 15.05.2013 and an amount of Rs. 35 lacs, in total, was to be paid by the petitioners to respondent No.2. However, out of the amount of Rs. 35 lacs, a sum of Rs. 10 lacs was paid in the Court itself and the remaining amount of Rs. 25 lacs was to be paid to respondent No.2 on or before 12.07.2013. Learned counsel also submits that this amount has also been paid to respondent No.2 and on payment of said amount, the Civil Suit was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, this petition has been filed for quashing of FIR, in question, on the basis of compromise.
(3.) As per directions issued by this Court on 26.05.2014, the statements of the parties were recorded, wherein, the factum of compromise has been affirmed. A report, in this regard, has also been sent by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, wherein, it has been stated that the Court is satisfied as the complainant has suffered his statement voluntarily without any pressure from the other side. Petitioners have stated in their respective statements that the compromise is as per their free will. Similarly, respondent No.2-complainant Devinder Singh has also stated that he has received the entire amount of property, in dispute and the civil litigation has also been compromised. It has also been mentioned by the complainant that he does not want to pursue the proceedings pending before the criminal Court. The compromise is with free will and without any pressure from other side. He has also stated that he has no objection in quashing of the FIR, in question, as well as other proceeding arising therefrom.;