IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-8688 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: September 19, 2011 Kamaljit singh …..Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.Arun Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab .. RAJAN GUPTA, J.: (Oral) This is a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.325 dated 16.11.2010 registered under section 307 IPC and section 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act at police station Payal, District Ludhiana on the basis of a compromise stated to have been arrived at between the parties. Pursuant to notice of motion order dated 22.3.2011, a report from the trial court has been received. According to same, a compromise has already been arrived at between the parties. Learned State counsel has, however, vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of FIR. He (on instructions from HC-Sukhdev Singh, who is present in court) submits that offence is under section 307 IPC. According to him, investigation of the case is still pending and petitioner has been absconding throughout. He further submits that the Crl.Misc.No.M-8688 of 2011 - 2 - shot fired from the licenced weapon hit the complainant in the back resulting in paralysis. He has also placed reliance upon judgment reported as Manoj Sharma vs. State & Ors. (SC), 2008(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 827. Heard. The FIR was lodged by Resham Lal Singla who submitted that accused fired at him from a licenced pistol. The shot hit him in the back due to which he fell on the ground. He was later admitted to Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana for treatment. According to learned State counsel, a serious injury was suffered by complainant and he had to be operated upon. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that compromise arrived at between the parties can be of no avail. In the alleged occurrence, the accused fired from a pistol and a gunshot injury was received by the injured. He never joined investigation and is absconding since the date of occurrence. In Manoj Sharma’s case (supra) the apex court cautioned against quashing of serious offences such as section 307 IPC on the basis of compromise. The petition is thus without any merit and is hereby dismissed. September 19, 2011 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE 2