CRM No. M-8184 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-8184 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.03.2009 Sewa Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Jasbir Rattan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioners have sought for quashing of the FIR bearing No.18 dated 14th March, 2009, under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sherpur, Police District Barnala, on the basis of a compromise. The FIR was lodged by Sinder Kaur wife of deceased Jeet Singh, alleging that Jeet Singh had committed suicide due to harassment at the hands of the accused-petitioners. Resultantly, a case under Section 306/34 IPC was registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant had given an affidavit, Annexure P-2 to the petition that she had lodged the FIR due to some mental tension and she did not want to take any action against her brothers-in-law Sewa Singh and Mohinder Singh, the petitioners herein. A Panchayati compromise dated 16th March, 2009 has also been placed on record as Annexure P-3 reiterating the fact that the complainant did not want to proceed with the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the compromise, the FIR deserves to be quashed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and given CRM No. M-8184 of 2009 2 careful thought to the facts of the case. I am of the considered view that there is no ground for quashing of the FIR in question. After Jeet Singh died, his wife lodged an FIR with the police that certain allegations were being levelled against her husband by her brothers-in-law Sewa Singh and Mohinder Singh due to which he committed suicide. Prior to this, a Panchayat was called for this purpose where the complainant apologized on behalf of her husband. After husband of the petitioner took some spray, she cried for help, but Sewa Singh and Mohinder Singh, the petitioners herein did not respond and watched the whole scene standing nearby. The complainant herself took her husband to the hospital where he died during treatment. Merely two days after the FIR was lodged, the compromise is stated to have been effected. In my considered view, this throws a serious doubt on the said compromise and even affidavit, Annexure P-2 given by the complainant. The possibility of the complainant being under pressure, cannot be ruled out. The investigation of the case has just begun. The case has been registered under Section 306/34 IPC. I thus find no ground to quash the FIR in inherent jurisdiction of this court on the basis of the alleged compromise. On the other hand, a thorough investigation in this case is necessary. The petition is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE March 24, 2009 'rajpal'