IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-15040 of 2009 Date of Decision: February 22, 2010 Jagtar Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. K.S. Kahlon, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. S.S. Chambyal, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No.157 dated 5.11.2007 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 IPC registered with Police Station, Kanuan, District Gurdaspur. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e. injured persons are present in Court as indentified by their counsel Mr. S.S. Chambyal, Advocate. The respondents state that indeed the disputes have Crl. Misc. No. M-15040 of 2009 [2] been settled by way of compromise deed dated 26.4.2009 (Annexure P-2). I have considered the issue. It has been specifically stated in the compromise deed that the complainant/ injured persons do not want to pursue the case and would have no objection if the FIR is quashed. Considering the nature of offence; statement having been made by the affected persons i.e. respondent Nos.2 and 3 in Court; and considering the fact that continuance of proceedings shall not bring the case to any logical end in the absence of evidence of private respondents, continuance of proceedings would be abuse of process of Court. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. FIR No.157 dated 5.11.2007 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 IPC registered with Police Station, Kanuan, District Gurdaspur and consequent proceedings are hereby quashed. (AJAI LAMBA) February 22, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?