IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.7319 -M of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : NOVEMBER 2, 2011 PRITAM SINGH & ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Satish Bhanot, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. GN Malik, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) CRM 59137 of 2011 The application is allowed. Affidavits are taken on record. CRM 7319 of 2011 1 This petition has been filed under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for quashing of FIR No.7 dated 27.1.2011 under Sections 454, 380, 447, 427, 511, 506, 148, 149, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Sandaur, District Sangrur (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings, on the basis of compromise dated 5.2.2011 (Annexure P-2). 2 Vide order dated 9.3.2011, the Illaqa Magistrate was directed to send a report in regard to validity of the compromise. Criminal Misc. No.7319 -M of 2011 (O&M) 2 3 Report dated 29.4.2011 has been received from Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Malerkotla, which indicates that the complainant owns the factum of compromise and has no objection if the proceedings against the petitioners arising out of FIR (Annexure P-1) are quashed. It has been opined by the Magistrate that the compromise seems to be voluntary in nature and there is no inducement, threat, coercion or undue influence. 4 In terms of order dated 13.11.2011, the petitioners have filed their respective affidavits to the effect that they shall not ask respondent No.2 to vacate the house and will not interfere in the life and liberty of respondent No.2. 5 In view of the stand that has come on record by way of affidavits of the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant states that let the FIR and proceedings be quashed. 6 Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that because the disputes have been settled by way of compromise, the State would have no objection to the quashing of the FIR. 7 I have considered the issue. 8 The parties have settled their disputes by way of compromise. It appears that there was some interference by the petitioners in the peaceful living of respondent No.2. In view of the undertaking given by the petitioners, the apprehension that life of respondent No.2 shall be disturbed, has been removed. The petitioners and respondent No.2 are residents of the same village and, now, want to live in peace, in terms of the Criminal Misc. No.7319 -M of 2011 (O&M) 3 compromise (Annexure P-2) and what has been stated in the affidavits of the petitioners filed before this Court. In such circumstances, it would be in the interest of peace and harmony to allow the petition and quash the FIR. 9 The petition is, accordingly, allowed. 10 FIR No.7 dated 27.1.2011 under Sections 454, 380, 447, 427, 511, 506, 148, 149, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Sandaur, District Sangrur (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings, are hereby quashed. NOVEMBER 2, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?