Crl. Misc. No. M-23530 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-23530 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: December 9, 2011 Ranjit Singh & others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Gopal Singh Nahel, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. KS Pannu, DAG, Punjab, for the State. Mr. Munish Raj, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of Crl. Misc. Nos.M-23530 and 24006 of 2011. The facts have been taken from Crl. Misc. No.M- 23530 of 2011. The petitioners being prosecuted for offences under Sections 323/324/341/506/34 IPC on the basis of FIR No.83, dated 17.8.2009 registered against them at Police Station Sherpur, District Sangrur, have approached this Court for quashing of the said FIR on the basis of compromise. Copy of the compromise is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2. This FIR has been registered on the basis of a complaint Crl. Misc. No. M-23530 of 2011 -2- filed by Major Singh-respondent No.2. On behalf of the petitioners, a cross case has been filed for which the respondents herein i.e. Dogar Singh, Boota Singh and Makhan Singh are being tried for offences under Sections 452/323/506/34 IPC. They have, accordingly filed a separate petition (Crl. Misc. No.M-24006 of 2011) seeking quashing of the cross case on the basis of same compromise, copy of which is attached with the petition as Annexure P-2 in both the petitions. As per the allegation made in the FIR, Ranjjit Singh, Daljit Singh and Hakam Singh are alleged to have made attempt to murder the complainant on 12.8.2009. While the complainant was going from his house to the house of Jaswant Singh, in the process, he has to pass in front of the houses of the petitioners. While he was returning and had reached near their houses, the petitioners had attacked the complainant. Ranjit Singh was having Gandasa and other petitioners were armed with Dangs. All the petitioners had attributed different roles to allege that they had attacked the complainant with intention to murder him. Cross version in the same FIR was also lodged at the instance of Ranjit Singh-petitioner No.1. As per the cross case, Ranjit Singh was going to dairy for delivering milk, when Makhan Singh, S/o Major Singh met him on the way. There was exchange of hot words and Makhan Singh left the place saying that he will teach him a lesson for demolishing their house. Makhan Singh and others had, accordingly, gone to the house of Ranjit Singh and his brother. They abused them while standing outside their house. In the next morning, Boota Singh etc. had come to their house and opening the gate forcefully entered into their house and gave blow with Gandasa Crl. Misc. No. M-23530 of 2011 -3- from the reverse side. Similarly, the other persons had also attacked the petitioners and others. While the proceedings were in progress, respectables of the village have intervened. The petitioners and the complainant in respective cases have, thus, arrived at compromise. They have now decided to live in peace and do not want to purse the cases against each other. They have, accordingly, approached this Court for quashing the FIR as well as the cross case on the basis of this compromise. Parties would rely upon the judgment in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, where it has been observed that the compromise in a modern society is the sine-qua-non of harmony and orderly behaviour and the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be used to enhance such a compromise, which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is finest hour of justice. No doubt, FIR in such like cases can always be quashed on the basis of compromise. This position of law is fully settled, but the question to be seen and realized is whether the parties can first fight and then waste the time of Court for considerable period and thereafter, realize the futility of fighting a litigation to reach a compromise. In this process, they waste the considerable time of the Court without any regard to the Court hours that are wasted on such a endless or futile litigation. The parties ought to have realized the same at the initial stage. It would have saved some valuable time of this Court as well as the trial Court. The parties must compensate for wasting the time of the Courts. The present petitions are, accordingly, allowed. FIR Crl. Misc. No. M-23530 of 2011 -4- No.83, dated 17.8.2009, registered under Sections 323 /324/ 341/ 506/34 IPC as well as the cross-version and all subsequent proceedings in both the cases are hereby quashed, but subject to payment of `10,000/- in each case as costs, to be deposited with the accounts of Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. The present order shall be subject to deposit of the costs as directed. If the costs is not deposited within one month, then the State may make a move to seek revival of FIR and the cross case recorded by DDR. December 09, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE