IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc M- 15229 of 2010 Date of decision: 23.7.2010 Sukhdev Kaur and ors …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and anr …Respondents Present: Mr SK Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr TS Salana, DAG Punjab. Mr Hemender Goswami, Advocate for respondent-2 with Respondent-2 in person. S.S.SARON, J. This order will dispose of Criminal Misc M-15229 of 2010 filed by Sukhdev Kaur - widow, Charanjit Kaur and Paramjit Kaur – daughters of Bharat Singh, Gurdev Singh son of Hazura Singh and Gurmukh Singh, Patwari, as also Criminal Misc M- 15407 of 2009 filed by Sukhdev Kaur – widow, Charanjit Kaur - daughter of Bharat Singh, Gurdev Singh son of Hazura Singh, Buta Singh son of Jita Singh and Major Singh son of Amar Singh, as they both arise out of the family dispute in which the complainant – Kamaljit Kaur – respondent-2 is common. Cr Misc M- 15229 of 2010 2 Kamaljit Kaur – respondent-2 has got registered two FIRs i.e. FIR 63 dated 20.3.2007 at PS City Moga, District Moga for the offences under Sections 420, 201, 217, 218, 120-B and 506 IPC; besides, FIR 85 dated 29.6.2007 at PS Mehna, District Moga for the offences under Sections 380, 324, 323, 148, 149 and 506 IPC. The quashing of the FIRs in the two petitions is sought on the basis of two separate compromises dated 15.5.2010 attached as Annexure P2 with the respective petitions. The complainant – Kamaljit Kaur is the wife of late Sukhchain Singh who is the son of Sukhdev Kaur – petitioner-1 and brother of Charanjit Kaur and Paramjit Kaur – petitioners-2 and 3 respectively in Criminal Misc M-15229 of 2010. The complainant is, thus, the daughter-in- law of petitioner –1 - Sukhdev Kaur and sister-in-law of Charanjit Kaur and Paramjit Kaur aforesaid. Gurdev Singh son of Hazura Singh is the father- in-law of Charanjit Kaur. Buta Singh son of Ajit Singh is the person in possession of the land in dispute owned by the family of Bharat Singh. Major Singh son of Amar Singh is a nephew of Gurdev Singh. Kamaljit Kaur – respondent-2 was married to Sukhchain Singh son of Sukhdev Kaur and brother of Charanjit Kaur and Paramjit Kaur, in 1991. She has two daughters and Sukhchain Singh had died in the year 2005. It is stated that Bharat Singh had died on 10.9.2000 earlier to the demise of Sukhchain Singh. FIR 63 dated 20.3.2007 was registered at PS Mehna for removing the attested affidavits dated 11.6.2002 of Paramjit Kaur, Charanjit Kaur and Sukhdev Kaur from the file in the Record Room of the office of Kanungo Branch pertaining to mutation of inheritance No.7860 of Bharat Singh in favour of Sukhchain Singh. According to the complainant, the said affidavits have been removed from the record of mutation of inheritance of Bharat Singh. FIR 85 dated 29.6.2007 has been registered on the statement Cr Misc M- 15229 of 2010 3 of Kamaljit Kaur – respondent-2. According to her, Bharat Singh – her father-in-law during his lifetime had executed a Will dated 21.5.2000 in favour of his son – Sukhchain Singh. Muataion 7860 of inheritance of Bharat Singh was entered on the basis of the said Will dated 21.5.2000. The statements of the witnesses of the Will were recorded during mutation proceedings and affidavits dated 11.6.2002 of Sukhdev Kaur, Paramjit Kaur and Charanjit Kaur have been deposed to the effect that they had no objection to the sanction of mutation. The said affidavits, according to the complainant, have been removed from that mutation file for which an inquiry, it was requested, be conducted. Thereafter, Sukhchain Singh died on 16.11.2005. He, during his lifetime, had executed a Will dated 2.10.2005 in favour of Kamaljit Kaur and Alice Brar. In this regard Mutation 8085 was entered and Sukhdev Kaur – mother-in-law of the complainant, submitted an affidavit dated 14.12.2005 to the effect that she does not have any objection to the mutation being sanctioned, which was sanctioned in her favour. The affidavit dated 14.12.2005 has also been removed and, therefore, it was requested that an inquiry be held. It is alleged that her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law filed an appeal against mutation 7860 so as to grab the land of the complainant and her son. Besides, they had threatened the complainant to get the mutation cancelled. In FIR 85 dated 29.6.2007, it has been alleged by the complainant that on 27.6.2007, she had come from England to village Rauli along with her son – Alice and daughter – Silki. When she entered in her house, her mother-in-law was present and she started abusing her and went out of the house by threatening that the complainant was not to be allowed to enter the house and the land. At about 7 p.m., the mother-in-law of the complainant namely Sukhdev Kaur along with her sister-in-law – Charanjit Cr Misc M- 15229 of 2010 4 Kaur and a nephew of Gurdev Singh, whose name she did not know and Buta Singh son of Jita Singh, came there. Gurdev Singh raised a Lalkara that they would throw her (complainant) out of the house. On this, Charanjit Kaur, Sukhdev Kaur and nephew of Gurdev Singh, caught hold of her and threw her on the ground and gave fist blows; besides kicked her. Meanwhile, Charanjit Kaur picked up a knife and inflicted a blow which hit on the fingers of her left hand. The nephew of Gurdev Singh pulled out her gold necklace while she was lying on the ground. Besides, other articles were stolen. In the compromise that has now been entered into by the complainant with the family members, the dispute has been settled and the complainant has submitted that she has no objection to the quashing of the FIRs. Her separate replies by way of affidavits in the two petitions have been filed which are taken on record. It is stated by her that both the parties are relatives and they have entered into a compromise in the presence of common relatives and respectables. She has no grudge or complaint against the petitioners and she does not want to pursue the case in the best interest of the parties, harmony and mutual relationships. Kamaljit Kaur – respondent-2 is present in Court and is identified by her counsel and she has stated that she has no objection if the FIRs are quashed. 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 compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution Cr Misc M- 15229 of 2010 5 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, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its Cr Misc M- 15229 of 2010 6 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.” In view of the above, the matter having been amicably resolved, the FIRs are liable to be quashed. The case is at its initial stages and charges have not so far been framed. The learned counsel for the State submits that in case the parties have indeed amicably settled the matter, the State would have no serious objection to the quashing of the FIRs. Accordingly, both these petitions are allowed and the FIRs i.e. FIR 63 dated 20.3.2007 registered at PS City Moga and FIR 85 dated 29.6.2007 registered at PS Mehna, District Moga, are quashed. 23.7.2010 ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge