Criminal Misc. No. M-36152 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-36152 of 2011 Date of decision : December 14, 2011 Sunil Kumar ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Amit Khatkar, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Kartar Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent no. 1 Mr. Vikas Jain, Advocate, for respondent No. 2 Respondent no. 3 in person L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Accused Sunil Kumar has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) for quashing FIR No. 55 dated 12.8.2011, under sections 307, 506 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act, Police Station Sector-20, Panchkula, Annexure P/1. FIR was lodged by Navjot Singh respondent no. 2 alleging that the petitioner fired at him but the shot hit petitioner's own brother Vikram Jaglan respondent no. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Criminal Misc. No. M-36152 of 2011 -2- case file. Respondent no. 2 – complainant has affirmed affidavit Annexure P/2 affirming that the FIR was lodged due to some misunderstanding and it was only accidental fire but the complainant thought that the petitioner had fired at him. Affidavit Annexure P/4 of respondent no. 3 injured has also been annexed giving same version. Affidavit Annexure P/5 of mother of petitioner and respondent no. 3 giving same version has also been annexed. Counsel for respondent no. 2 – complainant admits that respondent no. 2 has affirmed affidavit Annexure P/2 and therefore, respondent no. 2 has no objection to the quashing of the FIR. It was lodged as a result of some misunderstanding. Respondent no. 3 is present in person. He has been identified by counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for respondent no. 2. He is the injured person. Respondent no. 3 also admits his affidavit and states that he has no objection to the quashing of the FIR. 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 (3) Law Herald (Punjab & Haryana) 2225. Ordinarily FIR relating to offence under section 307 IPC may not be quashed on the basis of compromise. However, in the instant case, the facts are very peculiar and strange. Complainant Navjot singh respondent no. 2 who lodged the FIR and was allegedly fired at with Criminal Misc. No. M-36152 of 2011 -3- intention to kill him was not injured at all in the occurrence. He has also affirmed affidavit that he lodged FIR on account of misunderstanding. On the contrary, petitioner's own brother was injured in the occurrence and the said injured also has no objection to the quashing of the FIR. It is stated by respondents no. 2 and 3 that it was accidental fire. Keeping in view all these peculiar circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the impugned FIR is quashed. Continuation of prosecution of the petitioner would be abuse of process of court in view of aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No. 55 dated 12.8.2011, under sections 307, 506 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act, Police Station Sector-20, Panchkula, Annexure P/1 is quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. ( L.N. Mittal ) December 14, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'