Crl. Misc. No. M-34891 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-34891 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: January 06, 2010 Paramjit Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Padam Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G., Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 384 dated 10.12.2000 under Sections 306/120-B IPC, P.S. Sadar Ludhiana, District Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had gone to Greece. On coming back, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings in view of the fact that the parties had entered into a compromise. The case was disposed of while dealing with Crl. Misc. No. 38993 of 2007 vide order dated 31.03.2009. Learned counsel contends that in view of the fact that even the complainant, who is from the family of the victim, has no grievance and the case is not going to reach its' logical ends of conviction, Crl. Misc. No. M-34891 of 2009 2 no purpose shall be served by further custody of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent-State does not dispute the factum of compromise. The application, however, has been opposed while contending that the petitioner had been a proclaimed offender for a long period. I have considered the issue. Order passed by this Court while dealing with Crl. Misc. No. 38993 of 2007 titled Paramjit Singh s/o Gujjar Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another makes it evident that the FIR was not quashed in view of the fact that the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed offender. This Court, however, gave the following observations:- “However, in the case, the petitioner surrenders before the trial court, his prayer for grant of regular bail shall be considered and decided on the same day, taking into consideration the affidavit filed by the complainant and the fact that co-accused have been acquitted. Disposed of accordingly.” It is the admitted fact that the petitioner has already surrendered the passport before the Court. The factum of compromise is also admitted. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of Trial Court. 06.01.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE