IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-10525 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: August 29, 2011 Parveen Kumar and another …..Petitioners versus State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Amit Kaushik, Sr.DAG, Haryana for respondent No.1 Ms. Rajneesh Chadwal, Advocate for respondent No.2 .. RAJAN GUPTA, J.: (Oral) The petitioners have filed this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.110 dated 29.4.2006(Annexure P-1) registered under sections 324,323,506 and 34 IPC at police station City Narnaul, District Mahendergarh and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise between the parties. Learned counsel for the parties submit that during the pendency of this petition a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and dispute has been amicably settled. They submit that respondent No.2 is present in court today and has been duly identified by his counsel Mr.Rajneesh Chadwal. They have produced affidavit of Mukesh Kumar (respondent No.2) which is taken on record as Mark ‘A’ admitting therein the factum of compromise Crl.Misc.No.M-10525 of 2011 - 2 - arrived at between the parties. It has further been stated in the affidavit that respondent No.2 has no objection if the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 submit that in view of compromise, the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel for the State submits that in view of compromise the State will not stand in the way of quashing of the FIR in question. He, however, submits that matter pertains to the year 2006 whereafter investigative machinery was set into motion and trial ensued. Thus, costs of the proceedings need to be imposed. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.2 undertake to deposit Rs.10,000/-, as costs of the proceedings, with the Haryana State Legal Services Authority within two months on receipt of certified copy of this order. They further undertake that costs shall be equally shared by petitioners and respondent No.2. The compromise is in the interest of parties and after the matter has been resolved by an amicable settlement, no useful purpose is likely to be served by continuance of the criminal proceedings. In view of above, the present FIR and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed in light of Full Bench judgment of this court in Kulwinder Singh & others vs. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. The FIR in question and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-10525 of 2011 - 3 - are quashed subject to the parties complying with the undertaking aforesaid. August 29, 2011 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE 3