IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 29811 of 2011 Date of decision: 31.10.2011 Sanjiv Kumar and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Yashpal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. G.S. Cheema, Sr. DAG, Punjab for the State. Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Advocate for respondent No. 2. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 141 dated 06.11.2009 registered against them under Sections 341, 506 and 16 Bounded Labour System Act, 1976 at Police Station Mehana, District Moga on the basis of compromise. Copy of the compromise has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. Notice of motion was issued and the respondents have put in appearance. The respondents have also filed affidavit in the Court, which is taken on record. This is a case where Warrant Officer was appointed to visit the brick kiln owned by the petitioners. Respondent No. 2 left the brick kiln alongwith his family members taking the articles belonging to him. Soon thereafter the labourer brought to the notice of the petitioners that some articles lying in the brick kiln were missing. In Crl. Misc. No. M- 29811 of 2011 -2- order to ascertain if the respondent had taken away the said articles, the petitioners had followed the respondent in their car. As per the petitioner, the respondent left the spot without any conversation with the petitioner and went to the police station due to a misunderstanding that the petitioner had again come to force him to return to the brick kiln. On the basis of this, the FIR was lodged. Now the parties have reached the compromise. Copy of the compromise is Annexure P-1. It is stated that the parties have settled the dispute amicably with the intervention of the respectables and, accordingly, has prayed for quashing the FIR. Similar is the stand taken by respondent No. 2 in the affidavit, which is handed over today in the Court. The parties have come present. Counsel appearing for the respondent has identified Rajbir, respondent, who has made a statement before me that he has settled the issue amicably with the petitioners and he does not wish to pursue with the present FIR any further. Since the parties have reached compromise, it would be futile to allow this prosecution to continue. Otherwise also, it appears this FIR has been recorded on account of some misunderstanding. Since the parties have now amicably settled, the prayer made in the petition deserves to be allowed. Otherwise also, as per the law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and others 2007 (3) Law Herald (P& H) (FB) 2225, the parties can always resolve and amicably settled such minor disputes. No useful purpose would be served to allow this prosecution to continue. It will only lead to wasting the time of trial Crl. Misc. No. M- 29811 of 2011 -3- Court. The petition is allowed. The FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. October 31, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE