CRM-M-28889 of 2009 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CRM-M-28889 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 10.11.2009 **** Varinder Singh @ Barinder Singh and another . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab and another . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.Satpal Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.R.S. Rawat, AAG, Punjab. Mr.B.P.S. Virk, Advocate for complainant/respondent No.2. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.P.C’) for quashing of FIR No.15 dated 08.2.2009 (Annexure P-1) registered under Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) at Police Station Dasuya, Distt. Hoshiarpur and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of a compromise (Annexure P-2). The FIR has been registered at the instance of Paramjit Kaur wife of Joga Singh (complainant/respondent No.2), who has alleged that Virender Singh (petitioner No.1) and Jasbir Singh (petitioner No.2) had abused her daughter Lakhwinder Kaur, who could not tolerate it and committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. The allegations against the petitioners are of abetting. However, petitioners have alleged in this petition that a compromise has been effected between the parities. It is mentioned in the compromise that Varinder Singh and Jasbir Singh are grandsons, in relation, of Paramjit Kaur (complainant/respondent No.2). Both the parties are the residents of the same village and are close relatives. It is alleged that in order to defuse the friction in the families, compromise has been effected. Notice of motion was issued and reply has been filed by respondent No.1/State. Varinder Singh @ Barinder Singh (petitioner No.1) and Jasbir Singh @ Jasvir Singh (petitioner No.2) as well as Paramjit Kaur (complainant/respondent No.2) are present in CRM-M-28889 of 2009 - 2 - the court, who have been identified by their Advocates Mr.Satpal Singh and Mr.B.P.S. Virk, respectively. I have asked both, petitioners as well as the complainant/respondent No.2 about the compromise, to which they have stated that compromise has been effected as stated in the petition. The FIR has been registered under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. Although, Section 306 IPC is non-compoundable in terms of Section 320 Cr.P.C, yet in view of the decision passed by the Full Bench of this Court reported as Kulwinder Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab and others, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, even a non-compoundable offence can also be compounded. The petitioners are young boys and are related to the complainant. In order to bring harmony and peace in the village where both the parties are residing, a compromise has been effected and (complainant/respondent No.2) does not want to proceed against them. Thus, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, present petition is allowed and FIR No.15 dated 8.2.2009 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) NOVEMBER 10, 2009 JUDGE vivek