Crl.Misc.No. M-15255 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Misc.No. M-15255 of 2009 Date of decision: 10.9.2009 Arvind Kishore Puri and another ... Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ... Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr.Sikanderjeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.P.S.Grewal, AAG, Punjab. Mr.M.S.Saini, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ... JORA SINGH, J. Arvind Kishore Puri and Rakesh filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.169 dated 19.6.2005 under Sections 324/326/34 IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Batala (Annexure P-1), on the basis of compromise dated 29.4.2009 (Annexure P-2). After issuance of notice of motion, State appeared through Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Respondent No.2 also appeared through counsel. A direction was given to the petitioners and respondent No.2 Balwinder Kumar to appear before the trial Court to record their statements. A direction was also given to the trial Court to submit its report as to whether compromise is made voluntarily or not. As per direction by this Court, report was received from the trial Court to the effect that statements of the parties were recorded. Compromise amongst the parties is made voluntarily without any pressure. Photostat copies of statements of Balwinder Kumar, Arvind Kishore Puri Crl.Misc.No. M-15255 of 2009 2 and Rakesh Kumar were also sent. FIR No.169 dated 19.6.2005 is under Sections 324/326/34 IPC. Balwinder Kumar is the injured. Injury was not on the vital part. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in view of the compromise, FIR No.169 dated 19.6.2005 may be quashed because the petitioners and respondent No.2 are the residents of the same area. With the intervention of respectables and family members, parties have effected compromise and decided to sink their differences. Learned State counsel argued that in view of the compromise, no objection if the FIR is quashed. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that injury was not on the vital part, which was found to be grievous in nature. Parties have effected compromise. As per compromise, parties are to reside peacefully. If compromise is accepted, then there is no question of further litigation, otherwise, there are chances of litigation amongst the parties. Submissions of learned counsel for the parties seem to be reasonable one. Injury punishable under Section 326 IPC was not on the vital part. Parties are the residents of the same area. After the compromise, the parties are to reside peacefully. If the compromise is not accepted and the petitioners are directed to face trial, then there are chances of further litigation. When the injured-complainant is not going to support the prosecution story as per compromise, then no question of conviction of the petitioners because ultimately, the petitioners are to be acquitted of the charges levelled against them. In view of the compromise, continuation of the trial would be clearly misuse of process of law. As a sequel to above discussion, in view of compromise dated Crl.Misc.No. M-15255 of 2009 3 29.4.2009, FIR No.169 dated 19.6.2005 under Sections 324/326/34 IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Batala, is ordered to be quashed. The petition is allowed. 10.9.2009 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE