CRM-M-14668 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - CRM-M-22413 of 2011 (O&M) CRM-M-21397 of 2011 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-14668 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:16.09.2011 Rajnish Kumar and others . . .Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others . . . Respondents ***** CRM-M-22413 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:16.09.2011 Vikas Kumar . . .Petitioner Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent ***** CRM-M-21397 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:16.09.2011 Avneesh Kumar @ Vicky . . .Petitioner Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondents ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.J.S. Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioners (in CRM-M-14668 of 2011). Mr.Mandeep Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CRM-M-22413 of 2011). Mr.Kewal Singh, Advocate, for for the petitioner (in CRM-M-21397 of 2011). Mr.A.S. Rai, DAG, Punjab. Mr.Pardeep Kumar Bajaj, Advocate, for the complaints No.2 to 7 (in CRM-M-14668 of 2011). ***** CRM-M-14668 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - CRM-M-22413 of 2011 (O&M) CRM-M-21397 of 2011 (O&M) RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) This order shall dispose of three petitions (i) CRM-M-14668 of 2011 titled as “Rajnish Kumar and others Vs. State of Punjab and others”(for short ‘Ist petition’); (ii) CRM-M-22413 of 2011 titled as “Vikas Kumar Vs. State of Punjab”(for short ‘IInd petition’); CRM-M-21397 of 2011 titled as “Avneesh Kumar @ Vicky Vs. State of Punjab”(for short ‘IIIrd petition’) by a common order as all the three petitions have arisen out of the same FIR No.356 dated 22.8.2010 registered under Sections 307, 452, 326, 324, 323, 427, 506, 148 & 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) at Police Station Division No.5, Ludhiana. The IInd as well as IIIrd petitions have been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.) for regular bail whereas Ist petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C for quashing of the FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). Mr.Pardeep Kumar Bajaj, Advocate appearing on behalf of complainants/respondents No.2 to 7 in the Ist petition has submitted that the compromise (Annexure P-2) has been entered into by the complainants/respondents No.2 to 7 with their own free will. All the complainants/respondents No.2 to 7 are present in Court and are identified by their Advocate Mr.Pardeep Kumar Bajaj as well as Investigating Officer, HC Vikramjit Singh. I have also enquired from the complainants/respondents No.2 to 7 about the compromise to which they have stated that it has been entered into with their own free will and without any pressure. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has submitted that even if some of the offences are non-compoundable in terms of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. yet the FIR can be quashed on the basis of compromise in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of “Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another” 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052. He has also referred to the following decisions of this Court where FIRs registered under Section 307 of the IPC were quashed on the basis of compromise: 1. Balraj Singh @ Billu Fauji Vs. State of Punjab (P&H), 2010 (4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 406 CRM-M-14668 of 2011 (O&M) - 3 - CRM-M-22413 of 2011 (O&M) CRM-M-21397 of 2011 (O&M) 2. Jatinder Singh @ Billu Fauji vs. State of Punjab (P&H), 2011(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 428 3. Sanjiv vs. State of Haryana P&H), 2011 (2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 557 4. Balram vs. U.T, Chandigarh (P&H) 2011 (3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 390 5. Davinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (P&H), 2008 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 425 6. Kanwardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab (P&H), 2011 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 407 7. Harwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (P&H), 2011 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 362 8. Paramjit Singh vs. State of Punjab (P&H), 2010 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 516 9. Gurdeep Singh @ Rinku vs. State of Punjab (P&H), 2008 (3) AICLR 725 I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In view of the decisions rendered by this Court in CRM-M-24354 of 2011 titled as “Gora Lal and others Vs. State of Punjab and others” and CRM-M-19615 of 2011 titled as “Gora Lal Vs. State of Punjab and another” decided on 5.9.2011, the FIR registered under Section 307 IPC and other offences in the Ist petition can be compounded. Hence, the Ist petition (CRM-M-14668 of 2011 titled as “Rajnish Kumar and others Vs. State of Punjab and others”) is allowed and FIR No.356 dated 22.8.2010 is hereby quashed. Since the FIR No.356 dated 22.8.2010 has been quashed, therefore, IInd petition (CRM-M-22413 of 2011 titled as “Vikas Kumar Vs. State of Punjab”) and IIIrd petition (CRM-M-21397 of 2011 titled as “Avneesh Kumar @ Vicky Vs. State of Punjab) have become infructuous and are disposed of as such. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) SEPTEMBER 16, 2011 JUDGE Vivek