IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 35681 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.11.2011 Surinder Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Jasjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab for the State. Mr. H.S. Brar, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 4. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioners have approached this Court for quashing FIR No. 196 dated 07.10.2010 registered under Sections 364, 323, 342, 148, 149 IPC and also under Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of Arms Act. The prayer is also for quashing the cross case registered vide DDR No. 5 dated 24.10.2005 under Sections 452, 354, 341 and 325/34 IPC in the above mentioned FIR. The plea is that the parties have compromised and, accordingly, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution in this case to continue. The FIR, in this case, was registered on the statement of Jagsir Singh alleging that while he was proceeding on foot from Abohar Road, Bye pass, Muktsar to purchase house hold articles, he saw one Maruti car being driven by Puran Singh son of Mohar Singh coming from behind. Jai Singh son of Atma Singh of village Lande Rode were also sitting in the car alongwith Surinder Singh son of Crl. Misc. No. M- 35681 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Chand Singh. Puran Singh allegedly stopped the car near the complainant and raised lalkara by brandishing 32 bore revolver in the air and exhorted that the petitioner be caught. Jai Singh armed with kappa, Surinder Singh armed with kappa came out of the car. In the meantime, Harpreet Singh, Niranjan Singh etc. came there on motorcycle. Harpreet Singh took an iron rod and gave blow on the back side of complainant's left leg. Jai Singh gave khappa blow. The complainant fell down and Niranjan Singh gave a rod blow on the back side of the left ear. On the basis of this, the present FIR was lodged. The cross case was registered at the instance of petitioner No. 4 under Sections 452, 354, 341 and 325 IPC. Now the parties have settled their disputes amicably and have, accordingly, approached this Court through the present petition for quashing the FIR as well as the cross case. As per the directions issued by this Court, the parties have appeared before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sri Muktsar Sahib and have recorded their respective statements in regard to this compromise. The statement of the complainant party and accused were recorded and they have produced the original compromise signed by both. JMIC, Sri Muktsar Sahib has now submitted his report saying that the compromise has been voluntarily arrived at between the parties. The parties are now represented through their counsels. Both the counsels plead that the petitioners have resolved their differences and as such want to live in peace in future. Reference is made to ratio of law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. No. M- 35681 of 2010 (O&M) -3- Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and others 2007(3) RCR(Cri.) 1052. The Full Bench of this Court has taken a view that the compromise in such like cases or other criminal cases need to be encouraged to ensure peace in the society but the aspect that the parties first indulge in such adventure and thereafter waste considerable time of the Courts and then make move for compromise, can also not be lost sight of. If the parties have to compromise, it should be at the initial stage so that the time of the Court as well as the investigating agency is not wasted. What happens is that invariably, during the course of trial, which has made a substantial progress of each such cases, the approach is made on the basis of compromise which leads to wasting the valuable time of the Courts including that of the High Court. Parties in such like cases, therefore, must compensate for wasting the time of the Courts. While allowing the prayer for quashing the FIR as well as the cross case, the parties are directed to pay the costs of ` 10,000/- each in the accounts of Legal Services Authority, Punjab. The FIR and the cross case and all subsequent proceedings arising out of these are hereby quashed but subject to deposit of the costs as imposed. If the costs are not deposited, the FIR and also the subsequent proceedings shall be open to be revived. November 30, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE