- (1.) This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the FIR No.365/2010 of Police Station Jawahar Nagar, Sri Ganganagar for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) I.P.C. on the basis of compromise arrived at between the petitioners and respondent No.2.
(2.) On 21.5.2014, the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 prayed for some time to file compromise deed before this Court. Today, a joint application on behalf of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 has been filed wherein it is prayed that on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties, the respondent No.2 does not want to press the allegations levelled against the petitioners in the FIR and, therefore, the FIR may kindly be quashed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have submitted that compromise deed has already been produced before the Investigating Officer, who is investigating the matter in connection with impugned FIR, but the Investigating Officer has expressed his inability to close the case on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties and, therefore, the petitioners have filed this criminal misc. petition with a prayer to quash the impugned FIR filed against them. From perusal of impugned FIR, it is revealed that the respondent No.2 has levelled allegation against the petitioners and some other persons that the petitioner No.1 Mohan Lal has got opened a joint bank account in the name of respondent No.2 and one Ram Niwas by affixing his photo in place of him and by forging his signatures. It is alleged that the petitioner No.1 is operating the said bank account though he has never opened any such joint bank account along with Ram Niwas. It is also revealed from the allegations levelled in the FIR that the petitioner No.1 was the employee of the respondent No.2 from last about 25 years, however, in the FIR, there is no allegation regarding mis-appropriation of funds. In the joint application moved on behalf of the petitioners and respondent No.2, it is mentioned that both the parties have amicably resolved the dispute and, therefore, now the respondent No.2 does not want to press the allegations levelled in the FIR against the petitioners.;