IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No. 31729 of 2009 Date of decision: 21.1.2010 Ashwani Kumar and others ......Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Bhavna Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** ORDER The present petition is for quashing of FIR No. 93 dated 25.2.2008 registered under Sections 148/149/323/324/506/34 and Section 307 IPC (added later on) at Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal, District Kanal and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. Vide order of this Court dated 18.12.2009, both the parties were directed to get their statements recorded before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal. It was also directed that after recording their statements, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal shall forward the papers to the Registry of this Court. Vide letter dated 24.12.2009, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal has forwarded his Report wherein it has been mentioned that in compliance of the order passed by this Court, complainant- injured i.e. Kushal Kamboj and Sandeep Kadian and four accused, namely Ashwani Kumar, Surjit, Anil and Sanjeev appeared before him on 24.12.2009 and they made separate statements with regard to compromise between them. Both the parties have Crl.Misc. No. 31729 of 2009 [3] stated in their statements that they were satisfied with the compromise. Complainant-injured Kushal Kamboj and Sandeep Kadian also stated that they do not want any further proceedings to be taken against the accused. Both of them were identified by Shri G.S.Kadian, Advocate, while the four accused were identified by Shri Naresh Kumar Barana, Advocate. Today, all the accused are present in person who have been identified by their counsel and learned counsel for the complainant has also affirmed the factum of compromise between the parties. Since the matter has been compromised between the parties and both the parties are stated to be students in the age group of 19 to 25 years, no purpose would be served if the case is tried because as per the compromise, the complainant will not support the case and it will be a wastage of precious time of the Court. It has been observed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney (1980)1 SCC 63 that “the finest Hour of Justice arrives propitiously when the parties, despite following apart bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.” Relying on the views adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Five Judges Bench of this Court also observed in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2007(3) R.C.R. (Cri) 1052 that compounding of offence which are not compoundable under Section 320(9) Cr.P.C., offence non- compoundable but parties entering into compromise, High Court has the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non- compoundable offences and quash the prosecution where the High Court Crl.Misc. No. 31729 of 2009 [3] felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. Keeping in view the fact that both the parties have effected a compromise and continuance of proceedings before the trial Court will be an abuse of the process of the Court, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 93 dated 25.2.2008 registered under Sections 148/149/323/324/506/34 and Section 307 IPC (added later on) at Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal, District Kanal and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. As both the parties are in their threshold of career, it is expected and hoped that such like activities should not be there in future. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE January 21, 2010. raghav