IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-7380 of 2011 Date of Decision: 25.8.2011. Jatinder Singh --Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA. Present:- Mr. Ranjivan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G., Punjab for respondent no.1. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for respondents no.2 & 3. *** RAJAN GUPTA.J (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of F.I.R No.168 dated 19.9.2007 registered against the petitioner under sections 323, 307 initially under sections 323 & 326 I.P.C at Police Station City Khanna, Distt. Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after registration of case, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. In view of the same, FIR and all subsequent proceedings deserve to be quashed. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for quashing of FIR. While referring to reply filed on behalf of the State he submits that thorough investigation was conducted in the matter and thereafter challan was presented against the petitioner. Charge under sections 323/307 I.P.C was also framed. Heard. FIR was registered on the complaint made by Mohan Lal, father of injured Rajnish Kumar. He alleged that he was running a shop opposite Crl. Misc. No.M-7380 of 2011 -2- UCO Bank, Lalheri Road, Khanna. On 19.9.2007 he opened his shop at 6.00 A.M as usual. His son, who normally joins him at the shop, came at about 9.15 A.M. When his son was cleaning the area in front of the shop, Jatinder Singh (Petitioner) came there and objected to cleaning of the place. He alleged that garbage was being collected in front of his shop. He, thereafter dragged his son and stabbed him with a kirpan in the abdomen. This led to profused bleeding and son of the complainant fell down. Some other shopkeepers also gathered there. Son of the complainant was, thereafter, taken to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala for treatment. In view of the nature of allegations levelled in the FIR charge has been framed under sections 323/307 I.P.C, as the accused gave kirpan blow that pierced into abdomen. I am of the considered view that no case for seeking quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise is made out. In judgement delivered in Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors (SC) 2008 (4) RCR (Criminal) 827 it has been observed that criminal proceedings in serious offences like those under sections 302, 395, 307, 304-B IPC on basis of compromise should not be quashed. Apart from being non-compoundable, offence is serious in nature. This petition is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. The parties shall, however, be at liberty to raise their pleas before the trial court at the appropriate stage. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 25.8.2011. lucky