Criminal Misc. No.M-9819 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-9819 of 2011 Date of Decision : 22.07.2011 Harpreet Singh .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present : Mr. Gurinderjit Singh, Advocate Mr. J. S. Ahlawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. Hardeep Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. * * * * L.N.MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Harpreet Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short, Cr. P.C.), for quashing FIR No.286 dated 30.09.2010 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 336, 341, 323, 427, 506 and 34 of IPC and later on added Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Zirakpur, Distt. SAS Nagar, in view of compromise Annexure P-2 effected with complainant-respondent No.2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Pursuant to order dated 30.03.2011, report has been received from Ilaqua Magistrate that compromise is genuine. Statements of petitioner and respondent No.2 recorded by the Magistrate have also been received with the report. They have stated that they have voluntarily effected compromise. They have also stated that there is no other civil or Criminal Misc. No.M-9819 of 2011 -2- criminal case between the parties. Affidavit of Inspector Yogi Raj, filed today in Court, is taken on record. It has been affirmed in the affidavit that there is no other FIR registered against the petitioner in the concerned Police Station. Respondent No.2 is also present in person in the Court today. He has been identified by his counsel. Respondent No.2-complainant states that he has effected compromise Annexure P-2 with the petitioner and, therefore he has no objection if the FIR is quashed. In appropriate cases, FIR can be quashed on the basis of compromise by exercising power under Section 482 Cr. P. C., even if the offences are not compoundable. It was so held by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2007(2) Law Herald (Punjab & Haryana) 2225. In the instant case, no injury was caused to respondent No.2 in the occurrence. On the other hand, shot allegedly fired by the petitioner passed from near the ear of complainant without causing any injury and hit the glass pane of his shop. It is thus a case of 'no injury'. Offence under Section 307 IPC was in fact added later on and was not there in the original FIR. Since it is case of 'no injury', I am of the considered opinion that the FIR should be quashed in view of compromise between the parties. In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is allowed and impugned FIR Annexure P-1 is quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. ( L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 22nd July, 2011 'raj'