IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.2606 -M of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : MARCH 03, 2010 SATNAM PAL @ BOBY & ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. SS Siao, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. Balbir Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of two petitions viz. Criminal Misc. No.2606 -M of 2010 (Satnam Pal alias Boby and others vs. State of Punjab and Mohan Singh) and Criminal Misc. No.2696 -M of 2010 ( Mohan Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and Satnam Pal). Both these petitions pray for quashing of the FIR and cross-version recorded in regard to common incident and, hence, can be dealt with together. Criminal Misc. No.2696 -M of 2010 ( Mohan Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and Satnam Pal) has been filed under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing case FIR No.32 dated 9.7.2009 under Criminal Misc. No.2606 -M of 2010 2 Sections 452, 354, 323, 324, 506, 148, 149, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Koom Kalan, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings. Criminal Misc. No.2606 -M of 2010 (Satnam Pal alias Boby and others vs. State of Punjab and Mohan Singh) has been filed under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing proceedings initiated by the respondent-State/Prosecuting Agency in the cross-version recorded on the statement of Mohan Singh, appended with the petition as Annexure P-2, and subsequent proceedings. In both the petitions, common contention of the learned counsel for the parties viz. the accused and the complainant in the two cases, is that all the disputes have been settled by way of compromise. It has been jointly pleaded that the parties in both the petitions are residents of the same area. They have to spend their lives in the same society and social circle. With the intervention of the respectables, all the disputes have been settled by way of compromise deed dated 23.12.2009. Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that, in case, the proceedings are quashed on the basis of compromise, the State would have no objection. I have considered the issue. It is not in dispute that the parties in both the cases are living in the vicinity and share the same society. Since, the parties have decided to settle the disputes by way of compromise, it shall not be in public interest or in the interest of justice to allow the proceedings to continue, as peace and harmony of the area would be disturbed. Criminal Misc. No.2606 -M of 2010 3 Considering the law laid down in Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, both the petitions are allowed. FIR No.32 dated 9.7.2009 under Sections 452, 354, 323, 324, 506, 148, 149, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Koom Kalan, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1), proceedings initiated by the respondent- State/Prosecuting Agency in the cross-version recorded on the statement of Mohan Singh, and subsequent proceedings are quashed. March 03, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?