CRM-M-27843 of 2009 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CRM-M-27843 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 10.11.2009 **** Achchar Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and another . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.Mahesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.S. Rawat, AAG, Punjab. Mr.G.S. Goraya, Advocate for complainant/respondent No.2. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.P.C’) for quashing of FIR No.372 dated 15.9.2009 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 382, 323, 506 & 34 of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) at Police Station Phase-I Mohali as per the affidavit of the respondent No.2. (Annexure P-2). The FIR has been registered at the instance of Rupinder Singh s/o Bhupinder Singh (complainant/respondent No.2), who had alleged that on 14.9.2009 at about 10.30 PM when he had gone to meet his friends, in Dawat Restaurant Phase I Mohali, in his Zen (diesel) car bearing No.PB-69-0049, a red coloured Scorpio vehicle bearing No. PB-10-BH-0081, driven by Achchar Singh (petitioner) along with 4/5 persons came in front of him and thereafter Achchar Singh gave him beatings and while leaving the spot they left their Scorpio vehicle and forcibly took away his Zen car. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a compromise has been effected between the parties, namely, Achchar Singh (petitioner) and Rupinder Singh (complainant/respondent No.2). Both, petitioner as well as complainant/respondent No.2 are present in the court and have been identified by their Advocates Mr.Mahesh Gupta and Mr.G.S. Goraya, respectively. CRM-M-27843 of 2009 - 2 - I have asked Rupinder Singh (complainant/respondent No.2) as to whether he has got his Zen car, to which he has stated in the Court that he has recovered his car from the petitioner and has no grievance left to pursue before the Court of law. He has also submitted that he has no objection if the FIR registered against the petitioner is quashed on the basis of compromise. As, the FIR has been registered under Sections 382, 323, 506 & 34 IPC., out of which Sections 323 and 506 IPC are compoundable but Section 382 IPC is not compoundable, thus, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported as Kulwinder Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab and others, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, to contend that in such a situation where parties have settled their dispute, the proceedings before the trial Court henceforth shall be an exercise in futility and this Court in its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash even a case of non-compoundable nature. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the allegations contained in the FIR, which appears to be a case road rage in which parties have come to terms, I find that no useful purpose would be served in proceedings with the case. Therefore, this petition is allowed and FIR No.372 dated 15.9.2009 and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) NOVEMBER 10, 2009 JUDGE vivek