Crl. Misc. No. M-7657 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-7657 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 9.9.2011 Naveen @ Sundi & others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.2 dated 1st January, 2011 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 323, 324, 452, 506, 148 & 149 IPC, registered at Police Station City Rajpura, District Patiala, and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. On March 11, 2011, following order was passed by this court (Daya Chaudhary, J.) :- “The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, namely, Naveen @ Sundi, Prince, Khusli and Betti @ Luv Sharma for quashing of FIR No.2 dated 1.1.2011, registered under Sections 323, 324, 452, 506, 148, 149 IPC at Police Station City Rajpura, District Patiala, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). Notice of motion to the respondents for 17.5.2011. Meanwhile, the parties are directed to be present before the trial Court on 22.3.2011 or any other date Crl. Misc. No. M-7657 of 2011 2 convenient to the Court for recording their statements with regard to compromise. The Illaqa Magistrate is directed to record the statements of both the parties to its satisfaction to know its genuineness that the statements are not the result of any pressure or coercion in any manner. The Illaqa Magistrate is also directed to send a report alongwith statements of the parties with regard to validity or otherwise of the compromise effected between the parties and also intimate whether any case is pending against either of the parties or not before the next date of hearing.” Pursuant to the aforesaid order, a report along with statements of the parties has been received from the trial court (Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura). In its report, the trial court has observed as under:- “I have recorded the statements of witnesses/ executants of Ex.A1 along with affidavits Ex.A2 & Ex.A3 and after perusing, I have reached to the conclusion that compromise Ex.A1 is valid compromise. According to the statement suffered by both the parties no other case is pending in between the parties.” Learned State counsel submits that since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, the State would not stand in the way of quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise. The compromise is in the interest of the parties and after the matter has been resolved by an amicable settlement, no useful purpose is likely to be served with continuance of the criminal proceedings. In view of the above, the present FIR and the consequent Crl. Misc. No. M-7657 of 2011 3 proceedings deserve to be quashed in the light of the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR ( Crl.) 1052. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed, the FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 9.9.2011 'rajpal'