- (1.) Quashing of FIR No. 222 dated 20.09.2012 under Sections 336/307 IPC and Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station City Kapurthala, is sought on the basis of compromise deed dated 09.09.2014 (Annexure P-1). F.I.R has been registered at the instance of Pargat Kumar-respondent No. 2. As per F.I.R, on 20.09.2012 when complainant came to a hospital to see a boy namely Rahul of his village, who had received injuries and was admitted in the hospital, Gurdev Singh @ Fauji who was having a double barrel gun and 4-5 person who were with him argued with the complainant and petitioner No. 1 fired a shot from his double barrel gun. In this background, F.I.R was registered against the petitioners.
(2.) The matter has now been resolved between the parties vide compromise deed dated 09.09.2014 (Annexure P-1). This Court vide order dated 12.09.2014 passed the following order:- "A perusal of the F.I.R shows that it was a case of firm arm shot in the air. However, no one was injured. Notice of motion for 21.11.2014. In the meantime, parties are directed to get their statements recorded before the trial Court and the trial Court is directed to send the report with regard to the validity or otherwise of the compromise, after recording the statements of all the concerned parties before the next date of hearing. The trial Court is further directed to get the information from the Investigating Agency with regard to the injuries suffered."
(3.) Today, a status report has been received from Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala. As per report, statements of ASI Nirmal Singh, Investigation Officer, accused-petitioners Gurdev Singh @ Fauji, Ramnik Singh @ Romi as well as intervener Subhash Chander and complainant Pargat Kumar were recorded. As per statement of respondent No. 2, the matter has been compromised between the parties. He does not want to proceed with the present case and has no objection if the F.I.R be quashed against the accused persons. Complainant as well as ASI Nirmal Singh have further stated that the complainant did not sustain any injury in the alleged occurrence. The compromise is with the free will of the complainant. To the same effect is the statement given by the petitioners as well as intervener Subash Chander.;