CRM No. M 4605 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 4605 of 2011 Date of decision: 06.04.2011 Teja Singh and another ........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. J S Brar, DAG, Punjab Mr. S K Arora, Advocate for respondent No. 2 and 3 -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 88 dated 25.06.2005 under Section 341, 324, 34 IPC and later on Section 326 IPC added, Police Station Sadar Kot Kapura, District Faridkot (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 30.10.2010 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. CRM No. M 4605 of 2011 2 In the present case, FIR was registered on the statement of injured Ranjit Singh (respondent No. 2) that when he was coming back to his house at 10/10.30 am on 25.06.2005, he was way lid by parking tractor in front of him in the street of Village by Teja Singh, Karam Singh and they gave gandasa blow on his head. Then, he raised alaram which attracted Baj Singh. Teja Singh gave kappa blow on left hand finger of Baj Singh. Vide judgment dated 30.04.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot, both the petitioners were convicted and sentenced as under:- Name of accused Offence under Section Rigorous Imprisonment Fine in Rupees Imprisonment in default of payment of ine Teja Singh 324 IPC 9 months 100/- 2 days Karamjit Singh 326 IPC One year 100/- 2 days Aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal against the said conviction order before the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot. The same is pending. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that during the pendency of the appeal, the matter has been compromised. To this effect, both respondents No. 2 and 3 have filed their respective affidavits, stating therein, that both the parties have settled the matter amicably and have no objection if the said FIR as well as conviction order of the petitioners are set aside. This Court in the case of Parambir Singh Gill v. Malkit Kaur reported as 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 256 quashed the proceedings against one of the accused on the basis of compromise, whereas, proceedings CRM No. M 4605 of 2011 3 against the other co-accused were allowed to continue. The Apex Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 910, while quashing the FIR and all the proceedings arising out of the same, held that the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. In that case also, the petitioners were convicted under section 498-A IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment of 18 months. An appeal was filed against the conviction order and during the pendency of the appeal, the parties had settled their differences. However, they filed petition before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of the complaint as well as conviction order on account of the compromise. The High Court dismissed the same. Aggrieved, they challenged the same before the Apex Court. The Apex Court accepted the compromise and quashed the FIR and all the proceedings arising out of the same as well as order of conviction. This Court in the case of Sukhwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2008 (3) RCR (Criminal) 991 who relying upon the judgment of Khursheed and another v. State of UP and another, 2007 (4) RCR (Criminal) 495 allowed the petitioners to compound the offence under Section 452 IPC during the pendency of the appeal. Taking into account the allegation in the FIR, compromise as well as affidavit of respondents No. 2 and 3, there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C and accept the compromise to allow the parties to live amicably which shall reduce the friction in the society and promote peace and harmony. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the parties are CRM No. M 4605 of 2011 4 allowed to compound the offence. The parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Court where the appeal is pending. Thereafter, the Appellate Court shall pass appropriate order in the light of the permission granted by this Court to the parties to compound the offence. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 06.04.2011 mohan