IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-7898 of 2010 Date of decision: April 19, 2010 Balkar Singh @ Bugga and others Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present: Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Bhavna Gupta, DAG Punjab Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3 DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 324 dated 10.11.2009 registered at Police Station City Sangrur, District Sangrur under Sections 307/324/323/148/149 IPC on the basis of compromise dated 9.3.2010 (Annexure P-3) between the parties. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 has submitted affidavits of Karamjit Singh @ Makhan son of Harpal Singh and Karamjit Singh @ Cammy son of Gurdial Singh – respondents No. 2 and 3 in the Court wherein it has been mentioned that compromise has been effected between the parties with the intervention of the respectables. Respondents No. 2 and 3 – Karamjit Singh @ Makhan and Karamjit Singh @ Cammy, who are present in the Court have been identified by their counsel and have stated in the Court that they have no objection if the present FIR is quashed as they do not want to continue with the proceedings. Crl. Misc. No. M-7898 of 2010 2 Learned counsel for respondent – State submits that P.O. proceedings against petitioner No. 1 – Balkar Singh @ Bugga are pending and the present FIR was registered against petitioner as well as other unknown five persons. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as complainants have relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Rajinder Singh @ Rajinder Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another, 2003(1) RCR (Criminal) 123 wherein it has been held that even in case where P.O. proceedings are pending against the petitioner, FIR can be quashed. Since the matter has been compromised between the parties, no purpose would be served if the case is tried because as per the compromise respondents No. 2 and 3 will not support the case of the prosecution and it will merely be a sheer wastage of precious time of this Court. It has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney vs. Mr. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, 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 Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the Five Judges Bench of this Court also observed in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR(Criminal) 1052, that compounding of offence which are not compoundable under Section 320(9) Cr.P.C. but parties entering into compromise, this Court has the power under Section 482 Cr.PC. to allow compounding of non- compoundable offences and quash the prosecution where the Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The present one is a case covered by the views observed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the judgment mentioned above and, is therefore, a fit case to quash the FIR. Crl. Misc. No. M-7898 of 2010 3 In view of the above, FIR No. 324 dated 10.11.2009 registered at Police Station City Sangrur, District Sangrur under Sections 307/324/ 323/148/149 IPC and all subsequent proceedings arisen out of the same qua to them are quashed. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) 19.04.2010 JUDGE reena