CRM-M-20698 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - CRM-M-21410 of 2011 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-20698 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:12.10.2011 Rohtash and others . . .Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab and another . . . Respondents ***** CRM-M-21410 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:12.10.2011 Rohtash . . .Petitioner Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.S.S. Sandhu, Advocate, for, Mr.S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr.A.S. Rai, DAG, Punjab. Mr.N.K. Manchanda, Advocate, for the complainant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing CRM-M-20698 of 2011 titled as “Rohtash and others Vs. The State of Punjab and another” (hereinafter referred as Ist Petition) and CRM-M-21410 of 2011 titled as “Rohtash Vs. State of Punjab” (hereinafter referred as IInd Petition) as both the petitions have arisen out of the same FIR No.81 dated 13.5.2011 registered under Sections 326, 324 & 323/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) at Police Station Sadar Fazilka, District Ferozepur. The Ist petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.) for quashing of the FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of affidavit CRM-M-20698 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - CRM-M-21410 of 2011 (O&M) (Annexure P-2) and the IInd petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. Notice of motion was issued in both the petitions, pursuant to which Mr.N.K. Manchanda has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant, who is also present in Court. The complainant has been asked by this Court about the affidavit (Annexure P-2) to which he has submitted that the compromise has been effected by him out of his free will in order to bring an end to this hostility. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has relied upon Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of “Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another” 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 to contend that even though some of the offences in the FIR are non-compoundable yet in order to bring peace and harmony in the society, the injured can enter into compromise. Learned counsel for the State has also testified the compromise, on instructions received from HC Kuldeep Singh. The complainant Daya Ram is identified not only by his counsel Mr.N.K.Manchanda, Advocate but also by HC Kuldeep Singh. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that in terms of the decision in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others (Supra) the FIR can be quashed. Hence, the Ist petition (CRM-M-20698 of 2011 titled as “Rohtash and others Vs. The State of Punjab and another”) is allowed and the aforesaid FIR along with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom is hereby quashed. In view of the fact that the FIR itself has been quashed, IInd petition (CRM-M-21410 of 2011 titled as “Rohtash Vs. State of Punjab”) has become redundant and infructuous. Hence, the IInd petition is dismissed as infructuous. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) OCTOBER 12, 2011 JUDGE Vivek