IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-6303 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: September 07, 2011 Krishan Dev Sharma and another …..Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.H.S.Sangha, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab Mr.Sushil Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2 .. RAJAN GUPTA, J.: (Oral) The petitioners have filed this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of Criminal Complaint No.70 dated 16.4.2010 (Annexure P-1) under sections 323,504 IPC and section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 titled: Mewa Singh vs. Hardeep Singh and another pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mansa together with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 10.7.2010 (Annexure P-2)on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3). Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 submit that during the pendency of this petition, a compromise was effected between the petitioners and respondent No.2-complainant. Relying upon the judgment reported as Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, Crl.Misc.No.M-6303 of 2011 - 2 - learned counsel submit that in view of compromise, the FIR in question deserves to be quashed. Learned State counsel does not dispute the ratio of judgment in Kulwinder Singh’s case (supra) and submits that in case a compromise is arrived at between the parties, the State shall not stand in the way of quashing of FIR. Heard. It appears that while issuing notice of motion a direction was issued by this court to record the statements of the parties with regard to validity or otherwise of the compromise. A report has been received from the trial court. Operative part thereof reads thus: “3. Both the accused and complainant while appearing before this Court have stated that they have entered into compromise which is Mark A voluntarily and without any pressure and this compromise bears the signatures of both the accused and complainant Mewa Singh. They also suffered statements that there is no other case pending between them. So, prima facie it appears that both the parties effected compromise and suffered statements voluntarily and without any pressure or coercion. The statements of both the accused and complainant are enclosed herewith for kind perusal.” The compromise is in the interest of parties and after the matter has been resolved by an amicable settlement, no useful purpose is likely to be served by continuance of the criminal proceedings. In view of above, the criminal complaint in question and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-6303 of 2011 - 3 - deserve to be quashed in light of Full Bench judgment of this court in Kulwinder Singh’s case (supra). Resultantly, the petition is allowed. The criminal complaint (Annexure P-1) and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order (Annexure P-2) are hereby quashed. September 07, 2011 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE 3