IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M. No.32015-M of 2010 Date of Decision:2.11.2010 Vinod Kumar and others .... Petitioners Versus State of U.T. Chandigarh and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for U.T. Chandigarh. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) The present petitioners are seeking regular bail in case FIR No.247 dated 20.6.2010 registered under Sections 147/148/323/452/506 IPC and Section 304 (added subsequently) IPC at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh. It is contended that the compromise has been effected between the petitioners and respondent No.2 and other family members of the deceased Suresh Kumar Garg. In pursuance to the compromise, respondent No.2-complainant and his mother approached this Court by filing quashing Petition (CRM No.26767 M of 2010) praying for quashing of the FIR and all the proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. The factum of compromise is not disputed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of U.T. Chandigarh. In fact, it is alleged that the complainant himself has stated in the affidavit filed in CRM No.26767 M of 2010 that the deceased died on account of paralysis attack. Moreover, Crl. M. No.32015-M of 2010 -2- complainant alongwith others himself has come forward for quashing of FIR on the ground that the deceased died on account of paralysis attack. Whether the said compromise can be made basis for quashing of FIR or not is still to be considered. However, at this stage the prayer is for grant of regular bail. The FIR is, in any case, registered under Section 304 IPC. Accordingly, bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Chandigarh. 2.11.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE