CRM No.M-30671 of 2011 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** Date of decision : 21.10.2011 CRM No.M-30671 of 2011 (O & M) Sukhdeep Singh and another .........Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and another ........Respondents CRM No. M-18894 of 2011 (O & M) Paramvir Singh .........Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ........Respondent CRM No. M-22021 of 2011 Rajinder Kaur .........Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ........Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Ms. Naiya Gill, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. A.S.Rai, DAG, Punjab Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2 ----- Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) : This order shall dispose of three petitions bearing No. CRM No. M-30671 of 2011 titled 'Sukhdeep Singh and another v. State of Punjab and another' (hereinafter referred to as petition No.1), CRM No. M-18894 of 2011 titled 'Paramvir Singh v. State of Punjab' (hereinafter referred to as petition No.2) and CRM No. M-22021 of 2011 titled 'Rajinder Kaur v. State of Punjab' (hereinafter referred to as petition No.3), as all the three petitions have arisen from FIR No. 51 dated 19.5.2011 registered under Sections 382, CRM No.M-30671 of 2011 (O & M) -2- 323, 148, 149 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Amargarh, Sangrur. The first petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise dated 30.8.2011 (Annexure P-2) whereas petitions No.2 and 3 have been filed under Sections 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for anticipatory bail. Notice of motion was issued in the first petition on 12.10.2011 in which respondent No.2/complainant is being represented by Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate for Ms. Nirmalpreet Kaur, Advocate. In petitions No.2 and 3, notice of motion was issued and the petitioners were granted interim bail. The allegations against the petitioners is that they have caused injury on the arm of complainant with a rod and had snatched his mobile phone. The complainant is present in Court who is identified not only by his counsel Mr. Surender Sharma but also by the Investigating Officer ASI Hans Raj. The complainant has stated that he has patched up with the accused-petitioners and does not want to pursue his matter before the Court of law. It is pertinent to mention that complainant is a Patwari and is in service. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that although Section 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is not compoundable in Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 yet in terms of Full Bench decision of this Court in 'Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052' the injured can enter into compromise to bring peace and harmony in the society. CRM No.M-30671 of 2011 (O & M) -3- I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and I am of the view that since the matter has been finally patched up between the parties. Therefore, it is in the interest of justice and society to quash the FIR. In view thereof, the first petition is allowed and the aforesaid FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. Since the FIR is quashed in the first petition, petitions No.2 and 3 have become infructuous. Both are dismissed as infructuous. Photocopies of this order be placed on the files of connected cases. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE 21.10.2011 akm