IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-8542 of 2010 Date of decision: April 23, 2010 Jitender and others Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present: Mr. Manoj Chahal, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG Haryana for the respondent – State Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate for respondent No. 2 DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 41 dated 12.3.2010 registered at Police Station Sahlawas, District Jhajjar under Sections 285/34 IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter has been compromised between the parties and the complainant has no objection in quashing of the said FIR. Respondent No. 2 – Krishan Kumar, who is present in the Court who has been identified by his counsel and on asking of the Court has stated that he has no objection in quashing of said FIR. In view of the statement made by respondent No. 2, no purpose would be served if the case is tried, as per the compromise respondent No. 2 will not support the case of the prosecution and it will merely be a sheer wastage of precious time of this Court. Crl. Misc. No. M-8542 of 2010 2 It has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney vs. Mr. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, 1980(1) SCC 63 that “the finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when the parties, despite following apart bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.” Relying on the views adopted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the Five Judges Bench of this Court also observed in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR(Criminal) 1052, that compounding of offence which are not compoundable under Section 320(9) Cr.P.C. but parties entering into compromise, this Court has the power under Section 482 Cr.PC. to allow compounding of non- compoundable offences and quash the prosecution where the Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The present one is a case covered by the views observed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the judgment mentioned above and, is therefore, a fit case to quash the FIR. In view of the above, FIR No. 41 dated 12.3.2010 registered at Police Station Sahlawas, District Jhajjar under Sections 285/34 IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act and all subsequent proceedings arisen out of the same are quashed. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) 23.04.2010 JUDGE reena