IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.25118 -M of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 17, 2011 PARAMJIT SINGH & ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. KS Sidhu, Advocate, for respondents 2 & 3. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This order shall dispose of two petitions viz. Criminal Miscellaneous No.25118-M of 2011 (Paramjit Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and others) and Criminal Miscellaneous No.28387-M of 2011 (Paramjit Kaur v. The State of Punjab and others), as common questions of law and fact are involved. 2 The prayer, in both these petitions filed under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, is for quashing of FIR No.128 dated 17.07.2011 under Sections 452, 324, 148, 149, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Lehra, District Sangrur Criminal Misc. No.25118 -M of 2011 (O&M) 2 (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings, on the basis of compromise. The petitioners in these two petitions are accused in the FIR case. 3 It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners in these two petitions that the petitioners and respondents No.2 and 3 are residents of the same area. On account of an incident, respondents No.2 and 3 received injuries. Binder Kaur alias Sukhpreet Kaur, respondent No.2, lodged the FIR. With the intervention of respectables, the disputes have been settled by way of compromise. The factum of compromise is recorded in the affidavits sworn by Binder Kaur (respondent No.2) and Pargat Singh (respondent No.3), both sworn on 30.7.2011, and placed on record as Annexures P-2 and P-3, respectively. 4 Binder Kaur alias Sukhpreet Kaur (respondent No.2) and Pargat Singh (respondent No.3), as identified by their counsel Shri K.S. Sidhu, Advocate, are present in court and endorse the factum of compromise. 5 Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that because the disputes have been settled by way of compromise, the State would have no objection to the quashing of the FIR. 6 Considering the nature of offence; the fact that the parties are residents of the same area; the respondents do not want to prosecute the petitioners and, therefore, no purpose in law would be served by continuance of proceedings, these two petitions are allowed. 7 FIR No.128 dated 17.07.2011 under Sections 452, Criminal Misc. No.25118 -M of 2011 (O&M) 3 324, 148, 149, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Lehra, District Sangrur (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings, are hereby quashed. September 17, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?