Ranjit Singh, J.@mdashThis petition was for quashing the FIR registered against the petitioners under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. Petition was
filed pleading that the parties have reached a compromise and hence the same be quashed on that basis. The respondents, however, appeared and
did not wish to file any reply. The petition was accordingly admitted.
2. Criminal Misc. No. 10063 of 2008 has been filed that the petition be taken up for hearing as the case has been compromised between the
parties. Notice of this application was issued. Respondent No. 2 thereafter filed a reply to the main petition in the form of short affidavit. However,
none appeared on behalf of U.T. Chandigarh-respondent No. 1 on some of the dates. Accordingly, this court directed Senior Superintendent of
Police, U.T. Chandigarh to appear and explain the position as to why the U.T. Chandigarh had gone unrepresented and also non-presence of the
Investigating Officers, which hampers the disposal of the cases. Senior Superintendent of Police, U.T. Chandigarh was accordingly directed to be
present in the court today at 10.00 A.M.
3. Mr. G.S. Chahal, appearing for U.T. Chandigarh informs the court that Senior Superintendent of Police did come present at 10.00 A.M. and
appeared before Augustine George Masih, J. The case file, however, had not been received by the court, but was sent to this court as the main
petition is shown on the board of this court.
4. When the case is taken up at 3.00 P.M., Senior Superintendent of Police is not present. The counsel, however, says that S.S.P. can appear
before the court immediately if so required as he had left, thinking that case may not be taken up. Senior Superintendent of Police, U.T.
Chandigarh has appeared in the morning when the case could not be taken up. It cannot be said that there is non-compliance of the directions of
this court. Since the prayer is for quashing the FIR on the basis of compromise, there would hardly be any need to summon the Senior
Superintendent of Police, U.T. Chandigarh. However, he would himself look into this aspect and ensure that the Investigating Officers are present
when the cases are taken up where U.T. Chandigarh is a party. He would also ensure the presence of counsel, who are to appear on behalf of
U.T. Chandigarh by submitting the information to the counsel concerned well in advance.
5. A perusal of the case file would show that the dispute arose between the parties on the basis of one agreement to sell. The complainant had
advanced a sum of Rs. 60.00 lacs for sale of a plot. Subsequently, the dispute arose and sale could not be effected. The complainant accordingly
lodged this complaint of cheating. Thereafter, the matter has been compromised, though in the compromise it is recorded that petitioners have
agreed to return this amount to the complainant. The advance of Rs. 60.00 lacs, which was taken by the petitioners, has since been returned. The
complainant is present in the court and he confirms that the amount extended as advance has been returned to him.
6. Since the matter has now been resolved through this compromise, no useful purpose would be served in allowing this prosecution to continue. It
will only lead to wasting the time of the court. Otherwise also, the FIR now can be ordered to be quashed on the basis of compromise in view of
the law laid down in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2007(3) RCR (Cri.) 1052 : 2007 (3) LH (P&H) (FB) 2225.
7. The present petition is accordingly allowed. The FIR No. 68 dated 13.3.2006 registered under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC at Police Station,
Sector 36, Chandigarh and all subsequent proceedings arising there from are hereby quashed.