CRM-M 30895 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M 30895 of 2009 Decided on 18.11.2009 Vipan Kumar and another --.Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another --Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN PRESENT: Mr.Sandeep Arora,Advocate,for the petitioners Mr.R.S.Rawat,AAG,Punjab. Mr.Puneet Sharma, for the complainant. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing of FIR No.62 dated 10.6.2006, registered under Sections 323,324,148,149 IPC at Police Station Division No.3, Jalandhar and all subsequent criminal proceedings arising there from on the basis of a compromise. The aforesaid FIR has been registered by Sodhi Ram respondent No. 2 (complainant) in which it is alleged by him that he is a labourer. On 09.6.2006 at about 8.15 p.m., he along-with Deepa CRM-M 30895 of 2009 2 son of Goga were sitting outside the Post Office of their Mohalla. Vipan Kumar son of Vijay Kumar armed with sword and his brother Ricky also armed with sword along-with 4/5 more boys between the age group of 18 to 20 years came there. Vipan Kumar gave a kirpan blow which hit on his left hand and Ricky gave a kirpan blow with reverse side on his head. When Deepa tried to save him, 4/5 boys who were accompanying them hit Deepa with Soda bottles. Thereafter, on their raising alarm, the assailants ran away from the spot along-with their respective weapons. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, a case under Sections 323, 324, 148,149 IPC was found to have been committed by the present petitioners. It is alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Vipan Kumar (petitioner No.1) is confined in Central Jail, Jalandhar, in some other case. Ricky (petitioner No.2) and Sodhi Ram (respondent No.2/complainant) are present in Court, who have been identified by their Advocates Mr.Sandeep Arora and Puneet Sharma, respectively. I have categorically asked respondent No2/complainant about the compromise to which he has stated that due to intervention of respectables, the dispute has been resolved and an affidavit sworn by him dated 14.10.2009, is placed on record in this regard. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the offence under Sections 323,148,149 IPC are compoundable except the offence under Section 324 IPC. Section 323 IPC is compoundable in terms of Section 320 (1) Cr.P.C. He further submits that the aforesaid sections which are non-compoundable can also be compounded in CRM-M 30895 of 2009 3 view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) R.C.R (Criminal) 1052. This position is not challenged or disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in which the complainant is alleged to have suffered injuries coupled with the fact that the petitioners have settled their dispute with the complainant and also taking into consideration in the aforesaid decision in Kulwinder Singh's Case (Supra), in my view, proceeding further with the present FIR in the Court would be an exercise in futility. Thus, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.62 dated 10.6.2006, registered under Section 323,324,148,149 IPC at Police Station Division No.3, Jalandhar and all subsequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 18.11.2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge