IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Criminal Misc. No.21461 of 2010 and Criminal Misc. No.21460 of 2010 and Criminal Misc.No. M- 8235 of 2010 Date of decision:- 28.4.2010 Bakhshish Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents 2. Criminal Misc.No. M- 8236 of 2010 Sardool Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the applicants-petitioners in CRM M-8235 of 2010. Mr. Rajesh Dhiman, Advocate for the petitioners in CRM M-8236 of 2010. Mr. P.M. Anand, Addl. A.G. Haryana for respondent No.1-State. RAM CHAND GUPTA J.(Oral) Criminal Misc. No.21461 of 2010 in CRM M-8235 of 2010 Requests for impleading Darshan Singh son of Charan Singh as respondent No.3. Heard. Request is accepted. Criminal Miscellaneous stands disposed of. Criminal Misc. No. 21460 of 2010 in CRM M-8235 of 2010 Requests for placing on record the vernacular of compromise Annexure P-3. Application is allowed and the vernacular of compromise Annexure Criminal Misc.No. M- 8235 of 2010 -2- P-3 is taken on record. Criminal miscellaneous stands disposed of. Main case Both the aforementioned petitions have been filed for quashing of FIR No.40 dated 13.6.2004, under Sections 307,447,148,149 IPC and under Section 25/27/30 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Jhansa, District Kurukshetra (Annexure P-1) and DDR No.3 dated 17.6.2004 in case FIR No.40 dated 13.6.2004, under Sections 307,447,148,149 IPC and under Section 25/27/30 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Jhansa, District Kurukshetra (Annexure P-2) on the basis of compromise. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. It has been contended by learned counsel for the parties that the parties are closely related and that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled due to intervention of respectable persons and relatives from both the sides by panchayati compromise (Annexure P-3). Both the parties also appeared before this Court through counsel and admitted the correctness of compromise (Annexure P-3), and stated that they are not having any objection if the FIR and consequential proceedings are quashed. 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 vs. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052. Hence, in the interest of harmonious relations between the parties, the petitions are accepted and FIR No.40 dated 13.6.2004, under Sections 307,447,148,149 IPC and under Section 25/27/30 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Jhansa, District Kurukshetra (Annexure P-1) and DDR No.3 dated 17.6.2004 in case FIR No.40 dated 13.6.2004, under Sections 307,447,148,149 IPC and under Section 25/27/30 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Jhansa, District Kurukshetra alongwith all consequential proceedings arising Criminal Misc.No. M- 8235 of 2010 -3- therefrom, are quashed qua petitioners Bakhshish Singh, Bikram Singh, Gurcharan Singh @ Channa, Baldev Singh, Jagtar Singh and Salvinder Singh @ Sinda (petitioners in CRM M-8235 of 2010) and Sardool Singh, Bhupinder Singh, Sukhwant Singh, Makhan Singh, Darshan Singh, Norang Singh and Pritpal Singh (petitioners in CRM M-8236 of 2010). The petitions stand disposed of accordingly. April 28, 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) vj JUDGE