IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.10749 -M of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 18, 2011 SUKHDEV SINGH & ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Bhatheja, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. Kulbhushan Soi, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This petition has been filed under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for quashing of FIR No.15 dated 13.2.2005 under Sections 326, 325, 452, 148, 149, 323, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings, on the basis of compromise dated 12.1.2011 (Annexure P-5). 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that an incident took place in which both the sides were injured. The FIR came to be lodged at the instance of respondent No.2/Paramjeet Criminal Misc. No.10749 -M of 2011 (O&M) 2 Singh alias Pamma, in which the petitioners have been arrayed as accused. The cross version has been registered at the instance of Sukhdev Singh (petitioner No.1) and respondent No.2/Paramjeet Singh alias Pamma is being prosecuted. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No.2 contend that all the disputes between the parties have been settled by way of compromise (Annexure P-5). It has been pleaded that the parties are residents of the same village and, in the interest of peace and harmony, do not want to prosecute each other. 4 Respondent No.2/Paramjeet Singh alias Pamma, as identified by his counsel Shri Kulbhushan Soi, Advocate, is present in court and states that he is not ready to prosecute the petitioners, in view of terms of compromise (Annexure P-5) and he would not be bringing any evidence to Court. 5 Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that because the disputes have been settled by way of compromise, the State would have no objection to the quashing of the FIR. 6 Having considered the stand of respondent No.2, I am of the considered opinion that no purpose in law would be served by continuance of proceedings. Rather, in the interest of peace and harmony, the FIR needs to be quashed because the petitioners and respondent No.2 want to live in peace. 7 In view of the above, the petition is allowed. 8 FIR No.15 dated 13.2.2005 under Sections 326, 325, 452, 148, 149, 323, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Nihal Criminal Misc. No.10749 -M of 2011 (O&M) 3 Singh Wala, District Moga (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings, are hereby quashed. August 18, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?