Crl.Misc.M-17958 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-17958 of 2009 Date of decision: 3.11.2009 Harsharan Singh @ Gursharan Singh ... Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ... Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr.G.S.Kaura, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.P.S.Grewal, AAG, Punjab. Mr.Rajvir Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ... JORA SINGH, J. Harsharan Singh filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.59 dated 17.2.2002 under Sections 279/337/338/304-A IPC registered at Police Station Basti Jodhewal, District Ludhiana, on the basis of compromise. Notice of motion was issued to the State. State filed reply to the effect that after investigation, challan is pending in the Court. No question of compromise in case of non- compoundable offence. Krishan Lal, respondent No.2, filed his affidavit and the compromise deed. Vide order dated 8.7.2009, parties were directed to appear before the trial Court and the trial Court was further directed to record their statements and submit its report as to whether compromise is genuine one or not. Crl.Misc.M-17958 of 2009 2 Report was received from the concerned Court to the effect that statements of the parties were recorded and the compromise amongst the parties is genuine one. Pawan Kumar had died in road side accident. Widow of the deceased, namely, Hem Lata filed her affidavit to the effect that there is a compromise amongst the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that FIR No.59 dated 17.2.2002 was registered qua the death of Pawan Kumar in road side accident. Krishan Lal is the father of Hem Lata, widow of Pawan Kumar, deceased. As per compromise, Hem Lata, widow of Pawan Kumar, has received payment of Rs.1,50,000/-. In view of the compromise, widow of the deceased or Krishan Lal are not going to support the prosecution story. Learned counsel for the petitioner requested that in view of the compromise, FIR No.59 dated 17.2.2002 may be quashed. Learned counsel for the State and the complainant stated that there is compromise amongst the parties. Death of Pawan Kumar was in road side accident. Hem Lata is the widow of the deceased. Krishan Lal is the father of Hem Lata. As per compromise, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid to the widow of the deceased and her daughter. No objection, if FIR No.59 dated 17.2.2002 is quashed. FIR No.59 dated 17.2.2002 was registered under Sections 279/337/338/304-A IPC. Death of Pawan Kumar was in road side accident. After the death of Pawan Kumar, Rs.1,50,000/- was paid to the widow. Complainant party is not going to support the prosecution story. So, no question to order the petitioner to face trial because ultimately the petitioner is to be acquitted of the charges levelled against him when the complainant Crl.Misc.M-17958 of 2009 3 and the eye witnesses are not going to support the prosecution story. In view of the compromise, continuation of the FIR would be clear misuse of process of law. After compromise, parties are to reside peacefully, otherwise there are chances of further litigation. In the light of above discussion, FIR No.59 dated 17.2.2002 under Sections 279/337/338/304-A IPC registered at Police Station Basti Jodhewal, District Ludhiana, with all subsequent proceedings arising from the FIR, stands quashed. Petition is allowed. 3.11.2009 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE