Crl. Misc. No.M-17178 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-17178 of 2011 Date of Decision: 30.08.2011 Banwari Lal and another ..... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present: Mr. Atul Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. Padam Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.2. L.N. MITTAL, J. Banwari Lal and his son Rakesh Kumar have filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing the FIR No.469 dated 14.12.2008 under Sections 452, 506 and 34 IPC registered at Police Station Tripri Town, District Patiala (Annexure P-1) in view of the compromise (Annexure P-2) effected with respondent No.2 – complainant Raj Kumar. Reply on behalf of respondent No.1 filed today in Court is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 complainant states that parties have effected compromise (Annexure P-2) and, therefore, respondent No.2 has no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case Crl. Misc. No.M-17178 of 2011 -2- file. 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 and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2007(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1052. In the instant case, parties have voluntarily effected compromise. Report to this effect has been received from the trial Court pursuant to the order of the preceding date. Copies of statements of parties recorded by the trial Court regarding the compromise have also been received. There is also cross case against respondent No.2 herein lodged by Lajwanti wife of Banwari Lal petitioner No.1 herein and both the cases have been compromised. The dispute was regarding vacation of a shop occupied by respondent No.2 as tenant and the same has since been vacated. Thus it is a fit case in which the FIR should be quashed. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No.469 dated 14.12.2008 under Sections 452, 506 and 34 IPC registered at Police Station Tripri Town, District Patiala (Annexure P-1) is quashed qua petitioners along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. (L.N. MITTAL) 30.08.2011 JUDGE manju