IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-8900 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: August 19, 2011 Vijay Kumar and others …..Petitioners versus State of U.T., Chandigarh. .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Ms.Promila Nain, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Anil Kumar Lamdharia, Advocate for the U.T. Chandigarh for respondent No.1 Mr.Paramjit Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2 .. RAJAN GUPTA, J.: (Oral) The petitioners have filed this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.152 dated 20.8.2008 (Annexure P-1) registered under sections 323,506,34 IPC at police station Sector 19, Chandigarh and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). Learned counsel for the parties submit that during the pendency of this petition a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and dispute has been amicably settled. They submit that respondent No.2 is present in court today and has been duly identified by his counsel Mr.Paramjit Singh. They have placed on record affidavit of Rahul Moudgil (respondent No.2) which is taken on record as Mark ‘A’ admitting therein the factum of Crl.Misc.No.M-8900 of 2011 - 2 - compromise arrived at between the parties. It has further been stated in the affidavit that respondent No.2 has no objection if the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No.2 submit that in view of compromise, the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel for the State submits that in view of compromise the State will not stand in the way of quashing of the FIR in question. Pursuant to order of this court dated 23.3.2011, a report has been received from the trial court that complainant-Rahul has suffered statement on 23.4.2011 to the effect that he had compromised the matter with accused persons (petitioners herein) without any pressure or coercion. The complainant also proved on record his compromise deed Ex.PA. It is thus, verified by the trial court that compromise effected between the parties is genuine and without any pressure. The compromise is in the interest of parties and after the matter has been resolved by an amicable settlement, no useful purpose is likely to be served by continuance of the criminal proceedings. In view of above, the present FIR and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed in light of Full Bench judgment of this court in Kulwinder Singh & others vs. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052. 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-8900 of 2011 - 3 - Resultantly, the petition is allowed. The FIR in question and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. August 19, 2011 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE 3