Criminal Misc. No. M-22358 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-22753 of 2011 Date of decision : 02.09.2011 Hardeep Singh and another ....Petitioners V/s State of Punjab and another ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. A.S. Barnala, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Tribhuwan Singla, Advocate for respondent No. 2. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) The petitioners have filed this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 29 dated 05.04.2009 registered under sections 341/294/506/34 IPC at police station Dhanaula, District Barnala and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel for the parties submit that during the pendency of this petition a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and dispute has been amicably settled. They submit that respondent No. 2 is present in court today and has been duly identified by Mr. Tribhuwan Singla, Advocate for respondent No. 2. They have produced affidavit of Nahar Singh (respondent no. 2) which is taken on record as Mark ‘A’ admitting therein the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties. It has further been stated in the affidavit that respondent No. 2 has no Criminal Misc. No. M-22358 of 2011 2 objection if the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submit that in view of compromise, the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel for the State submits that in view of compromise the State will not stand in the way of quashing of the FIR in question. He, however, submits that after lodging of the FIR, investigative machinery was set into motion and trial ensued. Thus, costs of the proceedings need to be imposed. Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to deposit ` 10,000/-, as costs of the proceedings, with the Punjab State Legal Service Authority within two months on receipt of certified copy of this order. The compromise is in the interest of the parties and after the matter has been resolved by an amicable settlement, no useful purpose is likely to be served by continuance of the criminal proceedings. In view of above, the present FIR and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed in light of Full Bench judgment of this court in Kulwinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR(Crl.) 1052. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed. The FIR in question and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed subject to petitioners’ complying with the undertaking aforesaid. September 02, 2011 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE