Jaspal Singh, J. - (1.) By virtue of this petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No. 15 dated February 6, 2008, under Ss. 406, 420, 427, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana (Annexure P -1) and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.
(2.) The undisputed facts are that FIR, referred to above, was registered against the petitioner and after completion of investigation, challan was presented in the court of learned jurisdictional Magistrate, Ludhiana. The petitioner was chargesheeted to face trial under Ss. 420, 506 IPC vide order dated August 21, 2009. The said order was challenged before learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, by way of revision petition. During the pendency of revision petition, complainant - respondent No. 2 entered into a compromise which was reduced into writing on September 25, 2009 and at that time, complainant - respondent No. 2 received a demand draft worth Rs. 2.5 lac (Annexure P -4) towards full and final settlement from the petitioner. In pursuance of the aforesaid compromise, the petitioner withdrew the revision petition vide order dated September 25, 2009 (Annexure P -5). Subsequently, complainant - respondent No. 2 resiled from the terms & conditions of the agreement and did not make the statement for quashing of FIR in question.
(3.) During the course of arguments, the contention raised on behalf of complainant - respondent No. 2 is that quashing of FIR was not subject matter of the compromise and the withdrawal of revision petition through order dated September 25, 2009 was the unilateral act of petitioner. Complainant - respondent No. 2 has nothing to do with the same. It was also urged by respondent No. 2 that there were as many as three civil suits for recovery of different amounts against the petitioner and out of them, one suit has already been decreed for an amount of Rs. 1.55 lac on October 8, 2008 whereas in other two suits, the amount claimed was Rs. 2.5 lac and Rs. 1.70 lac, respectively. Those suits were dismissed in default subsequent to September 25, 2009. The amount of civil suits was more than Rs. 5 lac and it was not possible to have settled the matter only on receipt of Rs. 2.5 lac, that too, including the state case registered against the petitioner.;