Crl. Misc. No.M-187 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-187 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.08.2011 Lachman Singh and another ..... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present: Mr. Bhupinder Banga, Advocate, for Mr. Sherry K.Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Bhullar, AAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. J.K. Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. L.N. MITTAL, J. Lachman Singh and Jaspal Singh have filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing the FIR No.37 dated 01.04.2010 under Sections 452, 506, 427, 323, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Rama, District Bathinda (Annexure P-1) in view of the compromise effected with respondent No.2 – complainant Sukhpal Singh who has furnished his affidavit (Annexure P-2) regarding compromise. Pursuant to order of the preceding date, report has been received from the trial Court along with copies of statements of petitioners, complainant as well as injured eye-witness Balbir Kaur who all have stated that compromise has been effected between the parties. Report of the trial Crl. Misc. No.M-187 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Court also states that compromise is voluntary. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that compromise has been effected between the parties and, therefore, respondent No.2 has no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. Reply by way of affidavit of respondent No.2 to this effect has already been filed. In appropriate cases, FIR can be quashed on the basis of compromise by exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. even if the offences are not compoundable. It was so held by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2007(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1052. In the instant case, respondent No.2 – complainant as well as the other injured eye-witness Balbir Kaur have effected the compromise with the petitioners. Their grievance has been satisfied. Accordingly, it is a fit case in which the FIR should be quashed. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No.37 dated 01.04.2010 under Sections 452, 506, 427, 323, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Rama, District Bathinda (Annexure P-1) is quashed qua petitioners along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. (L.N. MITTAL) 29.08.2011 JUDGE manju