"•V #40 % 25.08.2011 Present: Mr.Zafar Sadiq with Mr.Shamsher Ali, Advocates for the petitioners. jvjs. Jasbir Kaur, APP for the respondent/State. +Crl.M.C.No.2791/2011 1. This is a petition seeking quashing of FIR No.365/2004 under Section A 326/34 IPG P.S. Sangam Vihar on the ground of settlement. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner and respondent No.2 are neighbours and they have arrived at an amicable settlement and now there is no dispute left between them, thus, no purpose shall be served by prosecuting the petitioners on the basis of complaint of respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the dispute between the parties is of private nature and in the past the courts have been kind enough to quash the FIRs even for the offence under Section 308 IPG on the ground of settlement. % 3. It is true that powers of the court under Section 482 Gr.P.G. to quash the FIR on the strength of settlement between the parties are wide enough and are not fettered by the restriction imposed by Section 320 Gr.P.G. However, this does not mean that the FIR for every offence has to be quashed in the event of settlement between the parties while dealing with such applications. The court is required to look into the facts of the case and arrive at a conclusion whether or not it would be in the interest of the society/justice to quash the proceedings. Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified 4. In the instant case, perusal of the FIR would show that the complainant/respondent No.2, in the FIR has claimed that a criminal case was pending against the petitioners in Patiala House Court in respect of an earlier incident. It is also claimed in the FIR recorded on the complaint of respondent No.2 that the petitioners were pressurising him to settle the earlier case and when he refused to settle the matter, the petitioners on lyth/isth iviay^ 2004 at about 8.30 p.m. visited him and struck him with some unknown weapon on his left hand, consequent upon which he sustained injuries. 5. If aforesaid allegations are true, it is apparent that the petitioners are desperate people. They were earlier involved in an offence and instead of repenting and mending their ways, they tried to pressurise the complainant to withdraw/settle the earlier case and on his refusal, they caused him grievous injury. Such persons, obviously, are a threat to the society and they do not deserve the indulgence of Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to extend the benefit of quashing of FIR on the ground of settlement. More so, when it is not even certain whether the settlement projected by the petitioners is voluntary and without any pressure. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition for quashing of FIR. Dismissed. (AJIT BHARIHOKE) JUDGE AUGUST 25, 2011 ks