Crl. Misc. No.M-11816 & 13877 of 2011 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Crl. Misc. No.M-11816 of 2011 Ram Kumar and others ... Petitioner(s) v. State of Haryana and another ... Respondent(s) 2. Crl. Misc. No.M-13877 of 2011 Prithvi Singh and others ... Petitioner(s) v. State of Haryana and another ... Respondent(s) Date of decision: May 19, 2011. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Surender Deswal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Shri Sandeep S. Mann, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.1. Shri Satish R. Swami, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): By this order, Crl. Misc. Nos. M-11816 and M-13877 of 2011 shall be decided together. Crl. Misc. No.M-11816 of 2011 has been filed by Ram Kumar, Vinod Kumar, Jai Kumar and Rajiv Kumar sons of Maan Crl. Misc. No.M-11816 & 13877 of 2011 -: 2 :- Singh and Maan Singh son of Chidwa Ram. They all have been nominated as accused in case FIR No.3 dated 9.1.2006, registered at Police Station Radore, District Yamuna Nagar, under Sections 148, 149, 324, 506 IPC. The FIR has been registered at the instance of Pawan Kumar – respondent No.2. Pawan Kumar, in his statement, stated that he was doing the business of computer hardware at Yamuna Nagar. The complainant along with his co-villagers namely Bhushan son of Mohan Lal and Shailender son of Jasmer Singh were running committee business and was releasing total amount of committee. Vinod Kumar – petitioner No.2 was acting as President of the committee and had not released the amount of committee from last 8/9 months. There was some dispute regarding the payment and a panchayat was convened on 8.1.2006 at 6 p.m. After the panchayat had dispersed at about 7 p.m., accused Rajiv Kumar armed with Patla, Ram Kumar armed with a sword, Jai Kumar armed with a Nalki of handpump and Vinod Kumar and Maan Singh empty handed came. It is stated that Vinod Kumar and Maan Singh raised a lalkara and thereafter the remaining 3 accused had given injuries to Pawan Kumar. Shri Surender Deswal, Counsel for the petitioners, has stated that in the FIR case, only complainant Pawan Kumar is stated to have been injured. Pawan Kumar complainant has been arrayed as accused in a cross version divulged by Rajiv Kumar – accused-petitioner in Crl. Misc. No.M-11816 of 2011. Crl. Misc. No.M-13877 of 2011 has been filed on behalf of Prithvi Singh, Anil Kumar, Pawan Kumar and Krishan Kumar and Jagmal Singh. They have prayed that a cross version registered at the instance of Rajiv Kumar in case FIR No.3 dated 9.1.2006, registered at Crl. Misc. No.M-11816 & 13877 of 2011 -: 3 :- Police Station Radore, District Yamuna Nagar, under Sections 148, 149, 324, 506 IPC be quashed. In the cross version, Rajiv Kumar has stated that when the panchayat was convened on 8.1.2006 at 7 p.m., Sarpanch Ramesh Kumar had asked him as to why his brother Vinod Kumar was not making payment. Upon the reply given by Rajiv Kumar, Sarpanch Ramesh Kumar had given a slap on the face of Rajiv Kumar. Thereafter, he gave another injury with elbow which hit on the backbone. All the accused are stated to have given kick and fist blows to Rajiv Kumar. Shri Satish R. Swami, Counsel for the accused-petitioners in Crl. Misc. No.M-13877 of 2011, has stated that cross version was registered for the injuries suffered by Rajiv Kumar. Be that as it may, in both the petitions a compromise deed Annexure P-2 has been relied. It is stated that the parties being co-villagers have decided to bury their hatchet and have agreed to promote amity, harmony and ever-lasting peace. Pawan Kumar complainant, who is present in Court, has been identified by his Counsel Shri Satish R. Swami. Similarly, complainant-injured of the cross version, namely, Rajiv Kumar is also present in Court. He has been identified by his Counsel Shri Surender Deswal. Mohinder Singh, ASI, P.S. Radore, who is present to assist Shri Sandeep Singh Mann, has also identified injured Pawan Kumar and Rajiv Kumar. Shri Surender Deswal and Shri Satish R. Swami, Counsel for the parties, vouchsafe the compromise arrived at between the parties and have prayed to this Court that the same be given credence by this Court and the parties be allowed to maintain cordial relations. According to the Crl. Misc. No.M-11816 & 13877 of 2011 -: 4 :- Counsel for the parties, pendency of the FIR case and cross version are impediment in resumption of smooth relations between the parties. Shri Sandeep S. Mann, Sr. Dy. Advocate General, Haryana, on instructions from ASI Mohinder Singh, has stated that only 3 witnesses have been examined and the case is fixed for further prosecution evidence on 8.9.2011. A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held under as under:- “28. The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. 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 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. 29. The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can Crl. Misc. No.M-11816 & 13877 of 2011 -: 5 :- affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice. 30. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para-meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restraint. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever- lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.” Taking into consideration the compromise Annexure P-2 relied upon by Counsel for the parties, nature of injuries, prayer made by Counsel for Crl. Misc. No.M-11816 & 13877 of 2011 -: 6 :- the parties and the ratio of law laid down in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra), both the petitions are accepted and FIR and the cross version case and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] May 19, 2011. Judge kadyan