IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDGIARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 2165 of 2009 Date of decision: March 25, 2009 Oshi Ahmed and others …. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another …. Respondents Present: Mr. Liaqat Ali, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** S.S. SARON, J. The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 95 dated 4.5.2006 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Sadar Ludhiana, for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 506, 148 and 149 Indian Penal Code (“IPC”- for short) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The FIR has been registered on the statement of Bhavnath Thakur (respondent No.2). It has been alleged by the complainant that the petitioners in connivance with each other had attacked him and beaten him in a land related dispute. The complainant on 30.4.2006 along with his family including his wife Mahakali Dev and grandson and granddaughters were present in their house. At about 12.00 – 1.00 p.m., many persons came in the village and they were about 10-12 in numbers who were armed with dandas. Out of them Oshi Ahmed (petitioner No.1), Rajiv @ Raji Ahmed (petitioner No.6), Nanu Ram (petitioner No.4), Vijay Ram son of Nanu Ram (petitioner No.5), Ram Dulari @ Dularia (petitioner No.7) Crl. Misc. No. M- 2165 of 2009 [2] and Asha Devi (petitioner No. 8) were amongst them and they started beating the complainant. The complainant ran from there and reached Kala Gujjar. However, before that Jeewak Sahni (petitioner No.2) gave a ‘danda’ blow to the complainant and Oshi Ahmed (petitioner No.1) gave a ‘spade’ blow on the right side of his back, due to which he (complainant) fell down. When wife of the complainant came forward to rescue him then all the said accused in connivance with each other also beat his (complainant’s) wife. She was got released by the complainant from the said accused and all the said accused along with their respective weapons fled away from the spot. The accused openly claimed that they were in search of the complainant since a long time and on that day, he had been found. Thereafter, the complainant did not know who had done what with him. Subsequently some persons of the village had got the complainant admitted in the Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. Then on 4.5.2006 on being fit he got his statement recorded which was attested Madhav Anand, ASI Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for respondent No.2 have submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled in terms of the compromise dated 16.12.2008 (Annexure P2). It is also stated that no evidence in the case has been recorded till date. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the FIR is not liable to be quashed as a clear cut case is made out against the petitioners who had attacked the complainant/respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 Bhavnath Thakur son of Shivnath Thakur is present in Court and is identified by his counsel Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate. It is stated by him that he has no objection to the quashing of the FIR and that he is making a statement of his own free will and desire and without any kind of pressure or undue influence. Crl. Misc. No. M- 2165 of 2009 [3] After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter it may be noticed that the dispute is between the residents of Village Malakpur Bet, Police Station Sadar Ludhiana. The co-villagers have now settled their disputes and they want peace and harmony in the village. In Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, a larger Bench of five Judge of this Court has observed as follows:- “ 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 CrPC, or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the CrPC.” Besides, in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, 2008(4) SCC 582 it has been observed that it needs to be emphasized 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 that 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 of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law. Crl. Misc. No. M- 2165 of 2009 [4] In view of the above and keeping in view the fact that the dispute has been amicably settled, no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the criminal prosecution. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, it would be just and expedient that the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) is quashed. In the circumstances, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and FIR No. 95 dated 4.5.2006 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Sadar Ludhiana for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 506, 148 and 149 IPC and all consequential and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom shall stand quashed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE March 25, 2009 amit