IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-31190 of 2009 Date of decision: 04.12.2009 Shikra Singh @ Ranjit Singh ….. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ….. Respondents Present: Mrs. R.P. Dudeja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Ms. Poonam Tara, Advocate for the complainant/respondent No.2. *** S.S. SARON, J. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) seeking quashing of FIR No.188 dated 26.8.2006 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Sidhwan Bet District Ludhiana for the offences under Sections 326, 324, 452, 148 and 149 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short) on the basis of compromise dated 24.10.2009 (Annexure P2). The impugned FIR dated 26.8.2006 (Annexure P1) was registered on the statement of complainant Kashmir Singh (respondent No.2). It is alleged by the complainant that on 21.8.2006 he and his wife Ranjit Kaur, youngest son Ranjit Singh and daughter-in-law Manjit Kaur were present in their house and he (complainant) was putting fodder to his cattle. At about 4.30 p.m. Baz Singh, Raj Kumar armed with ‘Dah’, Shikra (petitioner) armed with ‘Toki’, Jagtar Singh armed with ‘Toki’ and their son-in-law Bhagwan Singh armed with ‘dang’ came together and Baz Singh Crl. Misc. No.M-31190 of 2009 [2] raised a lalkara to catch hold of the complainant as he was at home and he be taught a lesson for demanding money. In the meantime, Raj Kumar, Shikra Singh (petitioner) and Jagtar Singh as also Bhagwan Singh their son- in-law along with their respective weapons entered the house of the complainant and then the petitioner gave a ‘toki’ blow on the person of the complainant Kashmir Singh (respondent No.2) which hit him on the fingers of his right hand while he had raised his hands in order to save himself. Jagtar Singh gave a ‘toki’ blow on the complainant which landed on the left side of his head. The complainant fell down and while he lay on the ground, Raj Kumar and Bhagwan Singh gave dang blows. The wife of the complainant namely Ranjit Kaur raised a hue and cry of ‘mar dita mar dita’. Then the assailants along with their respective weapons fled away from the spot. On the statement of Raj Kumar son of Jagtar Singh brother of the petitioner, a cross case was registered against Kashmir Singh (respondent No.2 – complainant), Ranjit Singh, Pappu, Wazir Singh and Bhagwan Singh for the offences under Sections 326, 324, 341, 365, 148 read with Section 149 IPC. Raj Kumar had stated that he was resident of village Saffipur and does the work of labour. They were two brothers and four sisters. Both the brothers were bachelors and his sisters were married. On 21.1.2006 at about 4 p.m. Raj Kumar complainant in the cross-version was on his way from his village Saffipur to the village of the in-laws of his sister namely Paramjit Kaur to know about her well-being. As the complainant Raj Kumar reached near village Kursaidpura at about 4.30 p.m., Kashmir Singh (respondent No.2) his son Ranjit Singh and Pappu son of Bhagwan Singh were standing in front of the house of Kashmir Singh (respondent No.2). Pappu son of Bhagwan Singh gave a signal to the complainant Raj Kumar to stop his scooter which he stopped and asked him as to what is the Crl. Misc. No.M-31190 of 2009 [3] problem with him. In the meantime, three assailants namely Kashmir Singh his son Ranjit Singh and Pappu son of Bhagwan Singh started beating the complainant. The brother of Kashmir Singh who was residing in the nearby house of Kashmir Singh came out of his house and after hearing hue and cry instigated them that the complainant Raj Kumar should be dragged into the house. The assailants then dragged the complainant Raj Kumar into the house of Bhagwan Singh where Wazir Singh son of Kashmir Singh was already standing armed with a ‘dang’. Then all of them started beating Raj Kumar complainant and tied him there. Then Baz Singh came there after hearing hue and cry and he made a telephone call to Jagtar Singh father of the complainant Raj Kumar and narrated the entire occurrence. Jagtar Singh father of the complainant Raj Kumar also reached the spot and the assailants started beating Jagtar Singh also. However, Jagtar Singh rescued himself from their clutches. Ranjit Singh gave a toki blow on the left side of the shoulder of the complainant Raj Kumar. Due to the impact of the toki blow, the complainant Raj Kumar fell down and the assailants kept on beating him when he lay on the ground. Therefore, on seeing the gathering at the spot all the assailants fled away with their respective weapons from the place of occurrence. The motive for causing the injuries was due to some money dispute on account of the sale of scooter. The accused wanted to compromise that money dispute, but the complainant was not ready for the compromise. The complainant Raj Kumar was taken to the hospital on the motorcycle by his father Jagtar Singh and Baz Singh. The complainant Raj Kumar was admitted at Civil Hospital, Sidhwan Bet where he was remained under treatment. On the basis of the allegations as made by Kashmir Singh (respondent No.2) and Raj Kumar from the side of the petitioner separate challans were filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class. Both the Crl. Misc. No.M-31190 of 2009 [4] cases were tried together. During the course of trial, it is stated that a compromise had been reached at between the parties and the witnesses did not support the case of either side. Accordingly, Raj Kumar, Jagtar Singh, Baz Singh and Bhagwan Singh from the side of the petitioner were acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagraon vide judgment and order dated 17.8.2009 (Annexure P4). Similarly, Kashmir Singh, Ranjit Singh, Pappu and Wazir Singh were acquitted vide judgment and order dated 17.8.2009 (Annexure P5) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagraon. The petitioner was declared a Proclaimed Offender and he was not tried. Now, the present petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR qua the petitioner as well. It is submitted that the parties have amicably reached at a settlement which has also been reduced into writing on 24.10.2009 (Annexure P2). Therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. The complainant Kashmir Singh (respondent No.2) has deposed affidavit dated 24.10.2009 (Annexure P3) stating that respectables of the Panchayat had compromised the matter with Raj Kumar and Shikra Singh (petitioner) etc. so now he has no dispute with them and they are living harmoniously. In this case, he (respondent No.2) does not want to pursue the case against Raj Kumar and Shikra Singh (petitioner) etc. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, though in the matter of a proclaimed offender, the Court is normally reluctant to quash the proceedings as accused cannot get any premium of his being a proclaimed offender. However, the petitioner on his own has surrendered before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagraon. Besides, the dispute is between persons of neighbouring villages and therefore, to avoid continuous feud and rancour between the two families, it would be Crl. Misc. No.M-31190 of 2009 [5] just and expedient to quash the proceedings. The complainant Kashmir Singh (respondent No.2) in his affidavit (Annexure P3) has stated that they are living harmoniously in the village. Therefore, in the circumstances in case prosecution evidence is started and witnesses are examined at this stage, it would be an exercise in futility as the end result is well-known. In fact both the sets of accused already stand acquitted vide separate orders passed on 17.8.2009 (Annexures P4 and P5 respectively). A reading of the said orders also shows that the witnesses had not supported the case of the prosecution and both the sets of the accused were acquitted. The dispute between the parties is personal in nature. In Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 582 it was held that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law. Keeping in view the aforesaid observations and the fact that the dispute between the parties is personal in nature, which they have settled vide compromise dated 24.10.2009 (Annexure P2), as also the fact that the recording of evidence and the process of trial would be a mere empty formality, it would be just and expedient to quash the proceedings. For the foregoing reasons, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and the case FIR No.188 dated 26.8.2006 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Sidhwan Bet District Ludhiana against the petitioner for the Crl. Misc. No.M-31190 of 2009 [6] offences under Sections 326, 324, 452, 148 read with Section 149 IPC and all consequential and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom shall stand quashed. Copy of the order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Secretary of this Bench. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE December 4, 2009 amit