IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-9447 of 2010 Date of Decision: May 12, 2010 Harry & Others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. G.S. Rawat, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 to 4. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) The petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No.67 dated 28.2.2010 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 324, 323, 452, 427, 379, 148, 149 IPC registered with Police Station, Division No.4, Jalandhar on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that FIR came to be lodged. Parties, Crl. Misc. No. M-9447 of 2010 [2] however, are resident of the same locality. On the intervention of the respectable, all the disputes between the parties have been settled. Compromise deed has been drawn which has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 namely, Ajay Kumar, Banarsi Dass and Ashwani Kumar, as identified by their lawyer, are present in Court and state that they are the injured persons and the only victims. FIR itself was lodged at the instance of Ajay Kumar (respondent No.2). The said respondents state that indeed all the disputes between the parties have been settled by way of compromise, Annexure P-2 and that respondents do not want to pursue the matter. Affidavits sworn by respondent Nos.2 to 4 have also been filed which are taken on record. Learned counsel for the respondent- State contends that investigation is still pending. The State would have no objection if the FIR is quashed in view of the compromise. Considering the above, I am of the opinion that respondent Nos.2 to 4 are the best witnesses of the incident and also the victims. The respondents would not be bringing evidence to Court, therefore no useful purpose would be served by continuance of proceedings against the Crl. Misc. No. M-9447 of 2010 [3] petitioners. Considering the nature of offence also, I am of the view that it would be in the interest of peace and harmony that the FIR be quashed. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. FIR No.67 dated 28.2.2010 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 324, 323, 452, 427, 379, 148, 149 IPC registered with Police Station, Division No.4, Jalandhar is hereby quashed. (AJAI LAMBA) May 12, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?