Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.@mdashPrayer in the above captioned petitions is for quashing of FIR No. 238, dated 23.08.2011, under Sections 120-
B, 406 and 420, IPC, registered at Police Station, Shahabad, District Kurukshetra, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the
basis of compromise. Vide order dated 15.02.2013, this Court had directed the affected parties to appear on 01.03.2013 before the learned
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra, for making their respective statements with regard to the compromise. The said Court was also directed
to send its detailed report in that regard along with copies of the statements to this Court on or before the date fixed by this Court.
2. In compliance thereof, the aggrieved persons, namely, Harbhajan Singh and Gurmeet Kaur (respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in CRM-M-26423-
2011) as well as the petitioners total eight in number of both the petitions, namely, Sajjan Singh, Amar Kaur, Daulat Singh, Gurbachan Singh,
Gurdev Singh, Baldev Singh, Joginder Singh and Prem Singh, did appear before the learned court below and got recorded their respective
statements with regard to the compromise. It is apposite to mention here that there was one more accused, namely, Parkash, who died during trial,
therefore, he could not appear before the court below.
3. Harbhajan Singh (respondent No. 5/complainant) inter-alia stated that he had entered into an agreement dated 10.06.2009 at Balachaur,
District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, with Daulat Singh (petitioner) for purchase of land situate at village Milakpur, Tehsil Nawanshahar, District
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, in his own name (Harbhajan Singh) and in the name of his brothers'' children, Maninder Singh and Kamaljeet Kaur,
whose mother and natural guardian was Smt. Gurmeet Kaur (respondent No. 6). There arose a dispute between him and Daulat Singh in that
regard and as such, the impugned FIR was registered at Police Station, Shahabad, against the petitioners. Due to intervention of respectable and
Khangi Panchayat, the matter had been compromised between him and Daulat Singh and others. He also deposed that he had no objection if the
impugned FIR was quashed. He further deposed that he was satisfied with the terms of the compromise.
4. Similar statement was suffered by Gurmeet Kaur. Even the petitioners got recorded their separate statements on oath, admitting the factum of
compromise.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions submit that on account of piece of land, a dispute had arisen between the complainant
and the petitioners. He further submits that due to intervention of respectable and elderly people of the society, a better sense has prevailed and
both the factions have sorted out their dispute and effected a compromise. Most of the conditions of the compromise have already been
materialized and the residue would be materialized within the stipulated period as mentioned in the compromise. He also submits that the petitioners
are peace loving persons and are not involved in any other case. He further submits that the chances of ultimate conviction of the petitioners are
bleak, therefore, pendency of FIR and continuation of the trial would be a sheer abuse of the process of law.
6. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from SI Nafe Singh, Police Station, Shahabad, District Kurukshetra, admits the factum of
compromise effected between the parties. He, after going through the statements and the status report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Kurukshetra, submits that he has no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.
7. Learned counsel for the private respondents, namely, Harbhajan Singh and Gurmeet Kaur has toed the submissions of learned counsel for the
State and admitted the factum of compromise. He too has no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, are quashed. He contends that Harbhajan Singh and Gurmeet Kaur did appear before the learned court below and suffered their
respective statements with regard to the compromise. He also contends that most of the conditions of the compromise have been materialized.
8. Heard.
9. The present criminal litigation has arisen out of a dispute over a piece of land and as such, the complainant party lodged the impugned FIR. Due
to intervention of the respectable and elderly people of the society, they have resolved all their disputes and effected a compromise. The aggrieved
persons/complainant party as well as the petitioners did appear before the court below and got recorded their respective statements with regard to
the compromise. Even the petitioners have also admitted the factum of compromise in their respective statements. Learned counsel for the State as
well as learned counsel representing the private respondents/complainant have admitted the factum of compromise and have no objection if the
impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings are quashed. The operative part of the report received from the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Kurukshetra, is as under:-
From the statement of the party, this Court is satisfied that the party has amicably settled the dispute and there was no pressure, coercion or threat
upon the parties while giving their statement in the Court. Both the counsel for the parties have filed their power of attorney. The party has been
duly identified by his counsel in the Court. Report as desired by the Hon''ble High Court is hereby sent forthwith through proper channel. Papers
be tagged with the FIR.
10. Taking into consideration the above facts, this Court is of the opinion that chances of ultimate conviction of the petitioners are bleak, therefore,
pendency of the FIR and continuation of the trial would be a sheer abuse of the process of law.
11. In view of the factum of compromise and the law laid down by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, as
well as the judgment delivered by a Five Judge Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , the present
petition is allowed and FIR No. 238, dated 23.08.2011, under Sections 120-B, 406 and 420, IPC, registered at Police Station, Shahabad,
District Kurukshetra, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. A copy of this order be placed on the file of
CRM-M-37610 of 2012 (Gurbachan Singh & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors.)