Crl. Misc. No. M-18394 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-18394 of 2009 Date of Decision : August 10, 2009 Jagsir Singh .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab for respondent no. 1. Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent no. 2. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Jagsir Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) for quashing FIR No. 93 dated 15.10.2000, under Section 465, 467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Phul, District Bathinda (Annexure P-1) in view of compromise effected with complainant-respondent no.2, who has furnished his affidavit (Annexure P-4) regarding the compromise. Reply affidavit on behalf of respondent no.2 filed today in Court is taken on record. Learned counsel for respondent no.2, on instructions from Crl. Misc. No. M-18394 of 2009 2 respondent no.2, who is also present in person in Court, states that the parties have effected compromise and therefore, respondent no.2 has no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. It has also been so stated in the reply affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2 today in Court. In appropriate cases, FIR can be quashed on the basis of compromise by exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are not compoundable. It has been so held by a Full Bench of this Court in case of Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported as 2007 (3) Law Herald (Punjab and Haryana) 2225. In the instant case, the dispute was between respondent no.2 and his brother Harnek Singh. The petitioner allegedly wrongly identified the complainant to secure affidavit for transfer of tubewell connection in favour of complainant's brother. It is now stated that the complainant has received the amount of his share from his brother Harnek Singh, whereas the petitioner, who is Sarpanch, has no concern with the tubewell connection. Grievance of the complainant has since been satisfied. It is, therefore, a fit case in which FIR should be quashed. In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is allowed and impugned FIR No. 93 dated 15.10.2000, under Section 465, 467, 468 IPC, registered at Police Station Phul, District Bathinda (Annexure P-1) is quashed, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. August 10, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE