Crl.Misc. No.M-52697 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: November 17, 2010 Crl. Misc. No. M-52697 of 2007 Nachhtter Ram ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ..........Respondents Crl. Misc. No. M-52711 of 2007 Kishan Lal and others ...........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Vikas Behl,Advocate for the petitioner. (in Crl.Misc. No. M-52697 of 2007) Mr.Umesh Kumar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioners ( in Crl.Misc. No.M-52711 of 2007) Mr.J.S.Sandhu,Assistant Advocate General,Punjab MrN.K.Doabia, Advocate for respondent No.2 ** Sabina, J. Crl.Misc. No.M-52697 of 2007 2 Vide this order, the above-mentioned Criminal Misc. Petitions are being disposed of by a common order as both the petitions have been filed seeking quashing of the cross-version dated 11.9.2005 registered on the basis of statement of respondent No. 2 in FIR No. 238 dated 11.9.2005 under Sections 323,324,325,148,149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC') at Police Station City Nawanshahar, District Nawanshahar. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the FIR in question was registered on the basis of the statement made by complainant Kishan Lal. In the said FIR, respondent No.2 along with others were the accused. Respondent No.2 lodged a cross-objection in the FIR got registered by Kishan Lal (petitioner No.1 in Crl.Misc. M No. 52711 of 2007). The said cross-version was registered against the petitioners under Sections 323, 324 148,149 IPC. Thereafter, the parties arrived at a compromise and the FIR was quashed by this Court vide order dated 17.5.2006 in Crl.Misc. No. 71294-M of 2005. The petitioners believed that the entire proceedings had been quashed. Petitioner Nachhattar Singh, thereafter, left for a Foreign Country believing that the criminal proceedings were no longer pending against him. However, the petitioners later came to know that the proceedings in the cross-version were still continuing against the petitioners. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has admitted the factum of quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise. In Crl. Misc. No. 71294-M of 2005, the following order was passed:- “Reply on behalf of respondent no.2 filed in Court is taken on Crl.Misc. No.M-52697 of 2007 3 record. The petitioners have approached this Court for quashing FIR No.238 dated September 11, 2005, registered under Section 324, 324, 323, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Nawanshahar. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondent No.2 have stated before the Court that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties through the intervention of the respectables of the village and, as such, the complainant- respondent No.2 has no objection, if the FIR in question is quashed. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the fact of amicable settled arrived at between the parties, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings and in any case the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is unlikely to result to their conviction. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 238 dated September 11, 2005, Police Station Nawanshahar against the petitioners is ordered to be quashed. As a result thereof, any resultant proceedings in pursuance to the aforesaid FIR shall also stand quashed. A copy of the order be given Dasti on usual charges." Thus, a perusal of the above order reveals that the quashing of the FIR was sought on the basis of compromise between the parties. The Crl.Misc. No.M-52697 of 2007 4 complainant in the FIR had also appeared before the Court and had stated that the matter between the parties had been amicably settled and that the complainant had no objection if the FIR in question was quashed. Thus, from this, it can inferred that the parties had arrived at a compromise qua the FIR as well as the cross-version. The petitioners would not have got the FIR quashed and allowed the cross-version proceedings to continue against them. Petitioner-Kishan Lal had appeared before the Court and had stated qua compromise effected between the parties and, thereafter, FIR in question was quashed. In these circumstances, the continuation of proceedings in the cross-version case are nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed. Cross-version dated 11.9.2005 registered on the basis of statement of respondent no.2 under Sections 323, 324,148,149 IPC in FIR No. 238 dated 11.9.2005 under Sections 323, 324, 325,148,149 IPC registered at Police Station Nawanshahar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. ( Sabina ) Judge November 17, 2010 arya