IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc M- 30359 of 2009 Date of decision: 5.2.2010 Amarjit Singh etc. … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab etc. …Respondents Present: Mr JBS Gill, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr VPS Sidhu, AAG Punjab. Mr Ruminderjit Singh, Advocate for the complainant. S.S.SARON, J. The petitioners seek quashing of FIR 156 dated 3.6.2009 (P1) registered at PS Sadar Hoshiarpur for the offences under Sections 341, 342, 326, 506/34 Indian Penal Code (IPC – for short). The quashing of the FIR is sought in view of the compromise dated 24.10.2009 (P2) entered into between the parties. The FIR (P1) in the case has been registered on the complaint of Yogesh (respondent-2). It is alleged by the complainant that on 2.6.2009 he and Kamaljjit Singh son of his father’s sister went on his (Kamaljit’s) scooter to Baba Shah Kook Peer, Chandigarh Road, Hoshiarpur, to discuss regarding purchase of a plot for which token money had been given, to Santokh Singh (petitioner-3), a resident of Chhotta Bajwara. It would be about 6.30 p.m. when Yogesh – complainant and Kamaljit Singh reached at the spot. There, Santokh Singh – petitioner-3 and his two sons – Amarjit Singh – petitioner-1 and Gurdial Singh – petitioner-2 were present. They Cr Misc M-30359 of 2009 2 threatened Yogesh – complainant that neither they would return the token money given for the purchase of the plot nor would they enter into any agreement and he could do whatever he wanted. Then the complainant stated that they would get their money by making an application to the Police. By saying this, he started to return. Then the petitioners followed them on a white coloured car. After overtaking them, they encircled them and stopped them. From amongst them, Santokh Singh – petitioner-3 raised a ‘lalkara’ and said that he be taught a lesson for threatening to go to the Police. Then, Amarjit Singh – petitioner-1 took out a ‘kirpan’ from the car and gave a blow to the complainant, who raised his left hand to ward off the blow and the ‘kirpan’ blow hit him on the left hand. Then the complainant immediately turned back and then Gurdial Singh – petitioner-2 who was holding a ‘kirpan’ in his hand attacked with it, which hit on the right side of the waist of the complainant. The complainant then raised hue and cry and on hearing him, people of the Mohalla gathered. Then, his brother – Kamaljit Singh tried to rescue him. The petitioners threatened him (Kamaljit Singh) that in case he came forward, he would also be cut to pieces. By giving threats, the assailants by sitting in their car, ran away from the spot along with their weapons. The cause of the incident was that the complainant had given token money as advance for the purchase of the plot. They had gone to ask for its refund. On this, they had encircled him and caused injuries. His brother – Kamljit Singh got him admitted in Civil Hospital for treatment, where he was under treatment. A perusal of the FIR shows that the dispute between the petitioners and the complainant – respondent-2 is purely personal in nature relating to refund of token money which was given as advance for purchase of the plot. In consequence thereof, the petitioners inflicted injuries on the Cr Misc M-30359 of 2009 3 left arm and on the right side of the waist of the complainant. The doctor opined the injuries to be caused with sharp-edged weapon. The parties have now filed a compromise which was recorded on 24.10.2009 (P2) stating that they have amicably resolved their dispute. Yogesh – respondent- 2 has also deposed an affidavit dated 21.10.2009 (P3) which is to the effect that he does not want to proceed further with the case as the matter has been compromised and his claim has been satisfied. On 22.12.2009 – Yogesh – respondent-2 was present in Court and was identified by his counsel - Sh Vikas Sharma. It was stated by the complainant – Yogesh (respondent-2) that he had no objection to the quashing of the FIR and that he had deposed an affidavit dated 21.10.2009 (P3). In terms of the reply filed by DSP (Rural) Hoshiarpur – respondent-1, it is stated that the petition filed by the petitioners for the grant of anticipatory bail has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and also by this Court on 20.7.2009. The Police is conducting investigation in the case and after completion of its investigation, challan would be presented. It is submitted that the offences are not compoundable and, therefore, the FIR is not liable to be quashed. The question regarding quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise even in respect of the offences which are non-compoundable, is not res integra. In Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582, it was observed by the Supreme Court as follows: “We need to emphasise 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 Cr Misc M-30359 of 2009 4 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 that the time so saved can be utilised 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.” A larger Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Cr.) 1052 (5 Judges) has observed as follows: “27. The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted by distorted perceptions and is not a slave to anything, except to the caution and circumspection, the standards of which the Court sets before it, in exercise of such plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it while donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of justice. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320 (9) of the Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 28. The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behavior. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is `finest hour of justice'. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, Cr Misc M-30359 of 2009 5 landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation.” As already noticed, the dispute between the parties is purely personal in nature which has been amicably resolved. The challan in the case has not so far been filed. Therefore, in the circumstances, it would be just and expedient that the FIR (P1) is quashed. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the case FIR 156 dated 3.6.2009 (P1) registered at PS Sadar Hoshiarpur, shall stand quashed. 5.2.2010 ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge