Baljeet Kaur And Another v. State Of Punjab And Another

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-2696 of 2015 (O&M) Date of decision: May 26, 2015 Baljeet Kaur and another .. Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another .. Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

Present:

Mr. R.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Yogesh Gupta, Asstt. AG, Punjab.

None for respondent No.2.

SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral) The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of FIR No.200 dated 02.09.2014 (Annexure P-1), registered for offence punishable under Sections 326, 324, 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') at Police Station Sadar Tarn Taran, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise in shape of affidavit (Annexure P-2) of respondent No.2.

As per case of the prosecution, the petitioners, who are the parents of respondent No.2(complainant), caused injuries to him on 23.08.2014 at about 2.00 p.m. and one of the injury was found grievous. Upon notice of motion on 27.01.2015, respondent No.1-State of

-2Punjab had put in appearance through Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and Mr. N.K. Awasthi, Advocate had put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

The parties were directed to appear before the trial court and get their statements recorded. The trial court has sent its report dated 13.03.2015 stating therein that the compromise has been effected between the complainant and the accused party voluntarily and without any pressure. Learned State counsel has not disputed the compromise. The only obstacle in the way of accepting the compromise for quashing the impugned FIR is that the offence punishable under Section 326 and 324 IPC are not compoundable. In case Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, Full Bench of this Court has held that the FIR can be quashed on the basis of the compromise by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. even if the offence is not compoundable.

In the instant case, the compromise has been effected between the parties, who are closely related to each other, with the intervention of respectables and relatives and now the parties wish to live in peace and harmony.

Keeping all the above facts in view, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case in which the impugned FIR should be quashed. Keeping the case pending will not serve the ends of justice. The quashing of the FIR will provide the parties opportunity to live in an amicable, peaceful

-3and harmonious atmosphere which is not only in the interest of the parties to this petition but also for their families and ultimately the society at large. The offence in this case is not so heinous or serious that it cannot be settled by the parties through compromise.

In view of the above discussion, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, qua petitioners, is quashed. May 26, 2015 (SURINDER GUPTA) Sachin M.

JUDGE