High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Vishal Kumar And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 23 October, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vishal Kumar And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 23 October, 2009
CRM-M 27733 of 2009            -1-

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

                                      CRM-M 27733 of 2009

                                      Date of Decision: 23.10.2009

Vishal Kumar and another
                                                 ..Petitioners.
Vs.

State of Punjab and another
                                                 ..Respondents.


CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

Present :   Mr.Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.

            Mr.Ranbir Singh Rawat, AAG Punjab for the respondent/State.

            Mr.Dinesh Sharma, Advocate for the complainant/respondent
            No.2.

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (Oral)

This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (for short `Cr.P.C’) for quashing of FIR No.90 dated

19.5.2009 registered under Sections 306/34 IPC at Police Station City

Sunam, District Sangrur and all the consequential proceedings arising

therefrom on the basis of a compromise effected between the parties.

The aforesaid FIR was registered on the complaint of Raj

Kumar son of Tarsem Chand against Vishal Kumar (petitioner No.1) and

Bharat Bhushan @ Happy (petitioner No.2).

Notice of motion was issued pursuant to which Sh.Ranbir

Singh Rawat, AAG Punjab has put in appearance on behalf of respondent

No.1 whereas Sh.Dinesh Sharma, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf

of respondent No.2 and has also filed a reply.

Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in terms of the

compromise (Annexure P-2) dated 24.9.2009, parties to the dispute have
CRM-M 27733 of 2009 -2-

decided to resolve the matter. Both the petitioners have been identified by

Sh.Rajesh Gupta, Advocate whereas respondent No.2 has been identified by

Sh.Dinesh Sharma, Advocate. I have asked both the parties in the Court

about the compromise to which they have stated that compromise (which is

annexed with the record as Annexure P-2) has been effected between them

and there is no change in the same till date.

Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision of this

Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and another

2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 1034 and a Full Bench judgment of this Court in

Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3)

RCR (Criminal) 1052 to contend that finest hour of justice is the hour of

compromise and once the parties have decided to live amicably after

resolving their disputes, even the offence which is non compoundable under

Section 320 Cr.P.C., can be compounded by invoking the inherent

jurisdiction provided under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

After hearing the counsel for the parties and keeping in view

the facts and circumstances of this case that since the matter has been

compromised between the parties, therefore, no useful purpose would be

served in prosecuting the present FIR, therefore, the present petition is

allowed and FIR No.90 dated 19.5.2009 registered under Sections 306/34

IPC at Police Station City Sunam, District Sangrur and all the consequent

proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.




                                           (Rakesh Kumar Jain)
23.10.2009                                       Judge
Meenu