IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc No. M-22917 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 13.10.2009 Yadwinder Singh and others ....Petitioners V/s State of Punjab and another ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. S.S. Tiwana, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG Punjab. Mr. Deepinder Brar, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 46 dated 14.05.2007 registered under Sections 452, 427, 506, 148 & 149 IPC at Police Station Mulepur, District Fatehgarh Sahib and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. 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 court today which is taken on record as mark 'A'. In the affidavit, respondent No. 2 has admitted the factum of compromise arrived at between him and the petitioners and further stated that he has no objection if the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom be quashed. Learned counsel for the State submits that in case there is compromise arrived at between the parties, the State will not stand in the Crl. Misc No. M-22917 of 2009 (O&M) -2- 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. However, in view of the fact that State has been put to some expenses after the investigative machinery was set into motion, cost of the proceedings need to be imposed in this case. Thus costs of Rs. 5,000/- are imposed to be shared equally by the petitioners and the respondent No. 2/complainant to be remitted to Punjab State Legal Service Authority. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed. The FIR in question and the subsequent proceedings arising are quashed subject to deposit of costs as directed in the foregoing para. 13.10.2009 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE