CRM-M 28129 of 2009 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M 28129 of 2009 Date of Decision: 23.10.2009 Jagir Singh and others ..Petitioners. Vs. The State of Punjab and another ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.B.S.Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Ranbir Singh Rawat, AAG Punjab for the respondent/State. Mr.R.S.Bajwa, Advocate for respondent No.2. 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.184 dated 16.12.2004 registered under Sections 447/379/336/506/427/148/149 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act at Police Station Mehta and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of a compromise effected between the parties. Notice of motion was issued in this case on 8.10.2009. Sh.R.S.Bajwa, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that due to the intervention of the respectables, a compromise (Annexure P-2) has been effected between the parties on 15.9.2009 as a result of which FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed. CRM-M 28129 of 2009 -2- Petitioner No.2 Lakhwinder Singh son of Jagir Singh is present in Court, who has been identified by Sh.B.S.Jaswal, Advocate. On the other hand, respondent No.2 is also present in Court, who has been identified by Sh.R.S.Bajwa, Advocate. I have asked both petitioner No.2 and respondent No.2 about the compromise (Annexure P-2) to which both of them have stated that compromise has been effected between the parties and there is no vengeance or grudge left. They have also stated that there is no change in the compromise till today. Sections 379/427/447 and 506 IPC are compoundable at the instance of the parties but Section 336 IPC is not provided in the list under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. However, total imprisonment provided for offence under Section 336 IPC is three months or with fine or both. Similarly the offence under the Arms Act is also not provided in the aforesaid two lists provided under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. However, in view of the decision of Full Bench in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, a non-compoundable offence can also be compounded by invoking the inherent jurisdiction provided under Section 482 Cr.P.C. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case and the fact that the parties belong to same village and want to live together amicably after resolving their disputes, this Court is of the view that Sections 336 IPC and 25 of Arms Act can also be compounded. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.184 dated 16.12.2004 under Sections 447/379/336/506/427/148/149 IPC CRM-M 28129 of 2009 -3- and 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act registered at P.S.Mehta and all other subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 23.10.2009 Judge Meenu