Crl.Misc.No.M-30052 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Misc.No.M-30052 of 2009 Date of Decision: 15.12.2009 Suresh Kumar .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Deepak Gupta Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab for respondent no.1. Mr. Ajay Singla, Advocate for respondent no.2. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing of FIR No.47 dated 1.6.2006, registered under Sections 63/64 and 65 of Copy right Act and Sections 102/103 and 104 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Section 420 IPC, at Police Station Tapa,Distt.Sangrur, alongwith all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom, on the basis of a compromise. Counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the trial, the petitioner and the complainant have arrived at a mutual settlement of their dispute by way of a written compromise. A copy thereof is appended with the petition as Annexure P-2. Counsel for the complainant accepts the correctness of the statement made by counsel for the petitioner and in support thereof has filed an affidavit dated 21.11.2009, duly sworn by the complainant, acknowledging the correctness of the compromise and deposing therein that he has no objection, if the FIR is quashed. The complainant Sh. Crl.Misc.No.M-30052 of 2009 2 Rajinder Kumar S/o Jagdish Rai C/o Jagdish Soap Factory, Tappa, Tehsil Barnala, Distt. Sangrur, is present in court, acknowledges the correctness of the compromise and prays that he has no objection, if the FIR and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. Counsel for the parties pray that in view of the compromise between the parties, the present petition be allowed and the FIR and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed. Counsel for the State of Punjab submits that as parties have entered into a compromise, the State does not oppose the prayer for quashing of the FIR and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the FIR, the compromise (Annexure P-2) and the affidavit filed by Rajinder Kumar S/o Jagdish Rai, respondent no.2 dated 21.11.2009 (Mark `A'). As the petitioner and respondent no.2 have resolved their differences amicably by way of a bonafide compromise, free from any fraud, coercion or undue influence, the continuation of a trial would be an exercise in futility. A compromise or a settlement, serves the immediate purpose of parties as it enables them to proceed with their lives without illwill or rancour. In view of the compromise, the witnesses are not likely to support the prosecution. To permit prosecution to proceed further would, in my considered opinion be an exercise in futility, an unnecessary wastage of public money and valuable court time. A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others V. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, has held that, in the exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court may in appropriate cases, quash an FIR disclosing the commission of non compoundable offences. Crl.Misc.No.M-30052 of 2009 3 In view of what has been stated herein above, as the prayer for quashing of the FIR and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom does not suffer from any legal impediment, the present petition is allowed and the FIR No.47 dated 1.6.2006, registered under Sections 63/64 and 65 of Copy Right Act and Sections 102/103 and 104 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Section 420 IPC, at Police Station Tapa,Distt.Sangrur, alongwith all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom, are quashed. 15.12.2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE