CRM-M 23377 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on 27.11.2009 Ombir Singh --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana --Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN PRESENT: Mr.Sunil Panwar,Advocate,for the petitioner Mr.Amit Khatkar,AAG,Haryana. Mr.Kunal Dawar,Advocate, for the complainant. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,'Cr.P.C.') for quashing of FIR No. 125 dated 23.6.2009, registered under Sections 66 and 67 of the Information Technology Act,2000 and sections 153 ,153-A, 499 and 507 of IPC, at Police Station, Manesar, District Gurgaon on the basis of compromise dated 07.9.2009 (Annexure P2) and all subsequent proceedings thereof . The aforesaid FIR has been registered at the instance of respondent No.2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner CRM-M 23377 of 2009 2 that the matter has been settled between the parties under Section 18 (1) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by way of compromise on 7.9.2009 which is placed on record as Annexure P-2., as a result of which, grievances of respondent No.2. have been redressed. An affidavit in this regard has been placed on record as Annexure P-3 sworn by the complainant/respondent No.2. Notice of motion was issued in CRM-M 28850 of 2009 on 14.10.2009. Pursuant to which, Parmod Kumar Arora complainant has put in appearance through Sh. Kunal Dawar,Advocate. Today, both the petitioner and respondent No.2. are present in the Court and have been identified by by their Advocates Mr.Sunil Panwar and Kunal Dawar, respectively. I have asked the complainant/respondent No.2 (Parmod Kumar Arora) about the compromise Annexure P-2 to which he has stated that the same has been executed by him with his free will and there is no grievance left to be prosecuted before this Court and further states that he has no objection if the FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. However, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the offences are non-compoundable. Faced with this, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) R.C.R (Criminal) 1052, to contend that even non- compoundable offences can also be compounded if the parties have decided to bury the hatchet between them by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. CRM-M 23377 of 2009 3 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law laid by this Court in Kulwinder Singh's Case (Supra), continuation of the present proceedings before the Court below would be an exercise in futility, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 125 dated 23.6.2009 registered under Sections 66 and 67 of the Information Technology Act,2000 and sections 153 ,153-A, 499 and 507 of IPC, at Police Station, Manesar, District Gurgaon on the basis of compromise dated 07.9.2009 (Annexure P2) placed in CRM-M 28850 of 2009 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. 27.11.2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge