IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc 20415 of 2009 and Criminal Misc M- 7845 of 2009 Date of decision: 29.4.2009 Gursewak Singh and ors … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and ors …Respondents Present: Mr Pushpinder Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr Sudhir Nehra, Addl AG Punjab. S.S.SARON, J. Cr Misc 20415 of 2009 The affidavits of Gursewak Singh (petitioner-1), Jatinder Singh (petitioner-2), Gurmeet Kaur (respondent-2), Didar Singh (respondent-3), Hardeep Singh (respondent-4) and Sukhwinder Singh (respondent-5) attached to this misc application are taken on record subject to just exceptions. This application stands disposed of. Cr Misc M-7845 of 2009 Reply by way of affidavit of Rachhpal Singh, PPS, DSP Rajpura on behalf of respondent-1 has been filed today in Court. The same is taken on record. Heard counsel for the parties. This petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR 110 dated 17.10.1999 (P1) registered at PS Banur for Cr Misc M- 7845 of 2009 2 the offences under Sections 452, 325, 323 and 34 IPC, the charge sheet dated 11.6.2001 (P2) and the subsequent proceedings in pursuance thereof pending before the learned trial Court; besides for quashing the complaint dated 13.8.2002 (P3) filed by Balwant Singh (who has since died and now represented by his son – Gursewak Singh – petitioner-1), the order dated 24.3.2006 (P4) holding that a prima facie case to be made out for the offences under Sections 323/34 IPC, the charge sheet dated 24.3.2006 (P5) and subsequent proceedings in pursuance thereof, in view of the compromise dated 11.3.2009 (P6). The FIR (P1) was registered at PS Banur against Balwant Singh (since deceased) and the sons of Balwant Singh namely Gursewak Singh (petitioner-1) and Jatinder Singh (petitioner-2) on the statement of Mehma Singh (since deceased) son of Assa Singh who is father of Didar Singh and Hardeep Singh (respondents-3 and 4 respectively). After the investigation was completed, Jatinder Singh (petitioner-2) was found innocent and the challan was presented against Balwant Singh (since deceased) and Gursewak Singh (petitioner-1). Jatinder Singh (petitioner-2), however, has been summoned as an additional accused in terms of Section 319 CrPC. Balwant Singh, father of petitioners filed a complaint dated 13.8.2002 (P3) alleging commission of offences under Sections 323, 324, 325, 427, 341, 351, 307, 148, 149 and 120B IPC against Mehma Singh (since deceased) and others. The accused, however, have been charge sheeted in terms of the charge sheet (P5) for the offences under Sections 323/34 IPC. The charge has been framed against respondents-3 to 5. Gurmeet Kaur – respondent-2 is the wife of Hardeep Singh (respondent-4) and daughter-in-law of Mehma Singh (since deceased). Sukhwinder Singh (respondent-5) is the son of Didar Singh Cr Misc M- 7845 of 2009 3 (respondent-3). The State prosecution case and the complaint case arise out of the incidents that occurred on 15.10.1999. The incident in the FIR (P1) occurred at 4.00 p.m. while that according to the complainant (P3) occurred at 4.30 p.m. The State case is fixed before the trial Court on 19.4.2009. The complaint case was last fixed on 30.3.2009. During trial of the case, Mehma Singh – complainant of the FIR (P1) has died on 24.9.2005. A copy of his death certificate (P7) has been placed on record. He is now represented by respondents-2 to 4. With the intervention of the respectables and common friends of the parties, the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved and a written compromise (P6) has been entered into between them. Both the parties are fully satisfied with the compromise. As per the compromise, respondents-2 to 5 have no objection if the FIR (P1) and other proceedings against the petitioners in consequence thereof are quashed. Besides, the petitioners have no objection if the complaint (P3) and subsequent proceedings in pursuance thereof are quashed. The affidavits of the petitioners and respondents-2 to 5 that have been taken on record are also to the same effect. Learned counsel for the State has, however, submitted that the statement of Mehma Singh – complainant in the FIR (P1) was recorded during the course of the trial and he had supported the prosecution case. Besides, three witnesses have been recorded. Therefore, the FIR (P1) in the case is not liable to be quashed. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. It may be noticed that as per the allegations in the FIR (P1) and the complaint case (P3) the dispute between the parties is personal in nature. Mehma Singh (complainant) of the FIR (P1) stated that on 19.10.1999 at Cr Misc M- 7845 of 2009 4 about 4 p.m. he was lying in his room and Gursewak Singh @ Sanju (petitioner-1) came in a drunk condition along with his brother – Jatinder Singh @ Romi Sarpanch (petitioner-2) armed with Lathis. Balwant Singh (since deceased) – father of the petitioners was standing in the street in an inebriated state and was abusing. They were abusing Mehma Singh - complainant and his sons – Didar Singh and Hardeep Singh (respondents-3 and 4 respectively). Mehma Singh (complainant) told them after standing in the door not to abuse them and as to what was their fault. Then Balwant Singh raised a Lalkara that today Mehma Singh be eliminated. At this, Gursewak Singh gave a Lathi blow which hit Mehma Singh on the wrist of his right hand and Jatinder Singh petitioner-2 gave a Lathi blow which Mehma Singh stopped with his left arm and the blow hit on his forearm. Then Jatinder Singh @ Romi after catching Mehma Singh from his hair made him fall down in the room and Gursewak Singh gave a Lathi blow on his head which hit on his face on the left side and Mehma Singh raised a Raula – ‘Maar ta, Maar ta’. During this process, Jatinder Singh gave a fist blow on the face of the complainant – Mehma Singh which hit him on his right jaw and his upper teeth were broken. On hearing the alarm, the elder son of the complainant namely Didar Singh (respondent-3) and his daughter-in-law namely Gurmeet Kaur (respondent-2) reached the spot and rescued the complainant from the abovesaid persons. The motive behind this was that few years back, Gursewak Singh (petitioner-1) had an altercation with Gurmeet Kaur (respondent-2) and the Panchayat had got Gursewak Singh (petitioner-1) arrested. While keeping the said grudge in mind, the assailants had caused injuries to Mehma Singh while he was sitting in a room of his house. Cr Misc M- 7845 of 2009 5 As per the allegations in the complaint (P3) it has been alleged by Balwant Singh (since deceased) that on 15.10.1999, the engagement of his son namely Jatinder Singh @ Romi (petitioner-2) was fixed. The in- laws of the son of the complainant – Balwant Singh and other relatives of the complainant had gathered at his house. Then Mehma Singh along with his sons – Didar Singh and Hardeep Singh (respondents-3 and 4 respectively) as also Sukhwinder Singh (respondent-5) – son of Didar Singh (respondent-3), assembled in front of the house of the complainant – Balwant Singh and started abusing him and his family members in filthy language. The said persons were armed with Lathis. The complainant – Balwant Singh and his son – Gursewak Singh (petitioner-1) came out of their house and asked those persons not to abuse them as their relatives and ladies had gathered there and that they should go to their house. Meanwhile, at about 4.30 p.m. Gurmeet Kaur (respondent-2) came there and she raised a Lalkara not to spare the complainant and his son and to teach them a lesson. She further raised a ‘Lalkara’ that the complainant and his family members be killed. Then Mehma Singh gave a Lathi blow on the right little finger of Gursewak Singh (petitioner-1) and he also gave a Lathi blow on the chest of Gursewak Singh. Didar Singh (respondent-3) gave Lathi blows on the backside and on the left ankle of Gursewak Singh (petitioner-1), as a result of which he fell down in the street. Then Hardeep Singh (respondent-4) gave a Lathi blow on the chest of the complainant – Balwant Singh. Hardeep Singh further gave a Lathi blow on the finger of the complainant which was amputated earlier. Sukhwinder Singh (respondent-5) gave Lathi blows on the right and left legs of the complainant. The complainant fell down in the street and then all the accused gave Lathi blows on the chest of the complainant in order to kill Cr Misc M- 7845 of 2009 6 him. The accused persons were within the knowledge that the complainant was a heart patient and bye-pass surgery had been done by the doctors of Apollo Hospital, Madras. The intention of the accused, according to the complainant, was to kill him by causing injuries on his chest. The complainant and his son were saved by Surjit Singh, Charan Singh and Avtar Singh of village Devi Nagar (Abrawan). A perusal of the allegations in the FIR (P1) and the complaint (P3) would show that the parties who are residents of the same village had been having fights. They also had a grudge as Gursewak Singh (petitioner- 1) was arrested after he had an altercation with Gurmeet Kaur (respondent- 2). The occurrence in the FIR case is of 15.10.1999 and the occurrence in the complaint case (P3) is also of the same day. Both the parties have given their respective versions. There are allegations and counter-allegations. The occurrence is of the year 1999 and a period of 10 years has elapsed and the parties are still litigating. The father of the petitioners namely Balwant Singh has since died. The father of respondents-3 and 4 namely Mehma Singh has also died. With the passage of time the parties have decided to bury their past and have entered into a compromise on 11.3.2009 and both the parties have agreed to remain bound by the terms of the compromise. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances and keeping in view the fact that the dispute is personal in nature and it would be just and expedient that the criminal proceedings in pursuance of the FIR (P1) and the complaint (P3) pending against each other are terminated by quashing them. 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 Cr Misc M- 7845 of 2009 7 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 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'. Cr Misc M- 7845 of 2009 8 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 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.” Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the fact that the parties have decided to bury their past and live in the village peacefully, this petition is allowed and the (FIR (P1), Charge sheet dated 11.6.2001 (P2), complaint dated 13.8.2002 (P3), summoning order (P4) and charge sheet dated 24.3.2006 (P5) and consequential proceedings in pursuance thereof are quashed. 29.4.2009 ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge