IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc No. M-9493 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 12.05.2009 Satbir and Others ....Petitioners V/s State of Haryana and another ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Deepender Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG Haryana. Mr. B.S. Walia, Advocate for respondent No. 2. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 281 dated 23.07.2008 registered under Sections 323/324/326/34 IPC at Police Station Hodal, District Palwal and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. Reply has been filed on behalf of State in the Court today and the same is taken on record. Counsel for the petitioners as well as respondent No. 2 have pointed out that both the parties are present in Court today. They have been duly identified by their respective counsel. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 in which it has been stated that petitioners and respondent No. 2 have compromised the matter. Respondent No. 2 has further stated that he has no interest in pursuing the FIR in question and thus, the same be quashed on the basis of compromise. The said affidavit is Crl. Misc No. M-9493 of 2009 (O&M) -2- taken on record as mark 'A'. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that an affidavit of the other injured namely Pohap Singh is already on record as Annexure P-4 to the petition. Learned counsel submits that the said injured is the father of respondent No. 2 and he has no objection to the quashing of the FIR in question. According to the counsel, he is authorized to make statement on behalf of injured Pohap Singh and he is responsible for the statement made on behalf of the said Pohap Singh. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Jaan Mohammad, who is present in court submits that in case there is compromise arrived at between the parties, the State will not stand in the way of quashing of the FIR in question. The compromise is in the interest of the parties and after the matter has been resolved by an amicable settlement, no useful purpose is likely to be served with continuance of the criminal proceedings. In view of the above, the present FIR and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed in the light of the decision of Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR(Crl.), 1052. Resultantly the present petition is allowed, the FIR in question and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. 12.05.2009 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE