CRM-M-18629-2018 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 134 CRM-M-18629-2018 Reserved on: 13.07.2026 Pronounced on: 15.07.2026 Date of uploading: 15.07.2026 SURINDER PAL ANAND AND ANR .... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR ...RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Sarabjit Singh Khaira, Advocate for Mr. Santosh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab. Mr. A.S. Khaira, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral) The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No.60 dated 24.07.2013 under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Mulepur Garibdass, SAS Nagar Mohali and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. 2. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of Neeru Joshi and reads as under:- "One complaint No. 3103/S/SSP/SAS Nagar dated 06.10.2012 from Neeru Joshi widow of Bhuvnesh Joshi r/o village Mulapur Garibdass has come up after investigation from incharge EO wing, District SAS Nagar who has written in his conclusion report that the husband of the applicant has purchased one flat from Madan Lal Anand and Surinder Pal Anand. Opposite party has received Rs. 3 lacs in addition dishonestly and they have not returned this amount and has given to the husband of the applicant the various cheques of Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 20,000, Rs. 20000/- although they were not KUSUM 2026.07.15 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRM-M-18629-2018 2 having the sufficient money in their accounts and whenever the cheques were presented by the applicant the same got dishonoured and by doing this Madan Lal Anand and as well as Surinder Pal Anand has committed an offence under section 406, 420, 120-B of IPC. After getting the report from DSP City this case is sent before the SSP SAS Nagar for approval. The application is as under: To the SSP Mohali "To The S.S.P. Mohali. Subject: Complaint against M.L. Anand son of Shri M.S. Anand and his son Surinder Anand both residents of House No. 354/1, Sector 44-A, Chandigarh for the commission of the offence of fraud/cheating. Sir, Most respectfully I submit as under: 1. That the applicant and her husband Bhuvnesh Joshi are the resident of village Mullanpur District Mohali were interested to purchase a flat at Dera Bassi in the year April 2008. Accordingly my husband and paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- in advance to Shri M.L. Anand vide an agreement dated 10.04.2008 and in this respect the son of the said M.L. Anand had got signatures on the different papers for raising a loan the State Bank of India, Sector 20, Panchkula and the Bank had sanctioned the loan in the name of owner of the Flats to the sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- vide cheque No. 129669 dt. 15.07.2008 in his name (M.L.Anand) whereas the price of the Flat No. 94 (First Floor) at Chandigarh Apartments, Barwala Road, village Madhopur Dear Bassi (Mohali) was Rs. 14,15,000/- and both the Father and his son agreed to refund the difference of the amount i.e. Rs. 2,85,000/- to the complainant as early as possible but till date both the accused persons have failed to refunded the aforesaid amount to the applicant/her husband inspite of many verbal requests and visits it is pertinent to mention here that the husband of the under signed/complainant has since died on 27.01.2009 but the balance payment is still due from them. However due to the non-payment of further installments of said Flat to the Bank Authorities, the complainant under pressure surrendered KUSUM 2026.07.15 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRM-M-18629-2018 3 the Flat to the Bank Authorities as my husband has already expired and xxx financial position. 2. That in order to avail said loan from the SBI Sector 20, Chandigarh the said accused have received a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- on dated 29.04.2008 and 08.05.2008 from my husband with promise that the same will be refunded to us on the release of the payment from the Bank, receipts enclosed for ready reference but inspite of many verbal requests from us the accused persons have failed to refund the above amounts. Ultimately, the said Surinder Pal Anand have refunded Rs. 90,000/- (Rs. 50,000/- 20,000/- 20,000/-) by way of cheques (copy of cheques are attached) out of his saving Fund A/C drawn on Corporation Bank Sec. 35, the Federal Bank Ltd., Madhya Marg Chandigarh on much insistence and later on all the cheques have bondishonoured due to insufficient of funds. Sir, all the payments have been given by us at our residence at Mullanpur in my presence. sence. 3. That the complainant approached the said accused persons for the refund of the amount of Rs. 5,85,000/- on 07.11.2010 but both the accused person did not issue any cheque but with the inattention of Mr. P.L. Midha R/o 3049, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh. Mutual settlement was assailed in between the parties and a settlement deed was executed on 07.11.2010 copy enclosed, for the refund of Rs. 3,00,000/- in all and in that sell deed the said P.L. Midha had agreed to responsible for payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- in case Mr. Surinder Anand S/o M.L. Anand fails to make the payment to the complainant Mrs. Neeru Joshi on 9.11.2010. 4. Whereas inspite of all this payment settlement/compromise dated 07.11.2010 none of the person came forward to make refund the amount till date as mutually agreed but in fact at the initial stage right from the raising of the loan from the Bank till this settlement deed the intention of the accused persons was to defraud the hard earned money of the complainant on the protect to raising the loan fro the purchase of the Plot and thereafter and it was only to cheat KUSUM 2026.07.15 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRM-M-18629-2018 4 the complainant and her husband since deceased. Hence this complaint to recover the amount from the above mentioned accused by taking legal action against them as the complainant has become penniless and has got no money to maintain herself and to look after her only daughter (minor) and widow as well after the death of her husband. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that a strong action under the provisions may please be taken against the accused-persons and who had the dishonest intention right from the beginning till end and to recover my above earned money from the accused persons and to bring them to book in accordance with law. Thanking you. Yours faithfully. Sd/ Neeru Joshi Wd/o Late Shri Bhuvnesh Joshi.” 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that after the registration of the FIR, the matter stood settled between the parties. The complainant made a statement before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kharar on 20.09.2013 that she had received the entire payment in furtherance of FIR No.60 dated 24.07.2013 under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of IPC, and therefore, she did not wish to proceed with the case. Under these circumstances, the accused was granted bail vide order of even date i.e. 20.09.2013. The compromise (Annexure P-5) would reveal that the same was entered into between the complainant on the one hand and petitioner No.2/Madan Lal Anand (since deceased) on his own behalf and on behalf of his son Surinder Pal Anand/petitioner No.1, on the other. The petitioners sought the quashing of the FIR on the basis of a compromise, but respondent No.2 made a statement that she had not effected the compromise, because of which the said petition was withdrawn vide order dated KUSUM 2026.07.15 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRM-M-18629-2018 5 01.08.2017 (Annexure P-6). Therefore, the instant petition has been filed. He contends that once a compromise has been arrived at and the complainant has received her dues under the terms and conditions of the compromise, the FIR must be quashed even if the complainant backs out of the compromise. Reliance is placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court in the cases of ‘M/s Swastic Pharma vs. M/s Dhanwantri Ayurvedic Sansthan’, bearing CRR-1203-2022, decided on 01.02.2023 ‘Babli vs. Khillar Singh and another’, bearing CRM-M-26077-2023 decided on 02.12.2024, ‘Rakesh Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and another’, bearing CRM-M- 23113-2024 decided on 13.02.2026 and ‘Ramesh Chand Meena vs. State of Haryana and another’, bearing CRM-M-23799-2025 decided on 16.02.2026. 4. The learned counsel for the complainant has not disputed the factual assertions as also the settled legal position. 5. The learned State counsel, on the other hand, contends that the challan stands filed. As the offence is prima facie established, the question of quashing of the FIR does not arise and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Admittedly, the aforementioned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No.2/Neeru Joshi. Pursuant thereto, a settlement was arrived at on 20.09.2013. Under the terms of the settlement, respondent No.2 received the amount due and made a statement to that effect before the Magistrate, who proceeded to grant bail to the accused. Once the settlement has been acted upon and the complainant has received the due amount under KUSUM 2026.07.15 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRM-M-18629-2018 6 the terms of the said settlement, she cannot renege from the compromise. It has been so held in the cases of ‘M/s Swastic Pharma vs. M/s Dhanwantri Ayurvedic Sansthan, ‘Babli vs. Khillar Singh and another, ‘Rakesh Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and another’, and ‘Ramesh Chand Meena vs. State of Haryana and another’, (supra), that the FIR in such a case is liable to be quashed. 8. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, as the complainant has been adequately compensated under the terms of the compromise and has admitted the same, the proceedings emanating out of FIR No.60 dated 24.07.2013 under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Mulepur Garibdass, SAS Nagar Mohali, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, stand quashed. 9. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE 15.07.2026 Kusum Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No KUSUM 2026.07.15 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh