IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-38064 of 2010 Date of Decision:13.1.2011 Gurnam Singh and another .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. G.P. Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.26 dated 9.3.2009 under Sections 341/323/148/149 IPC (Charges framed under Sections 307/341/324 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act) Police Station Sadar Ropar and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The FIR in question was got registered against the present petitioners and Bhupinder Singh by respondent No.2, who is the real brother of the petitioners. The third accused-Bhupinder Singh, who is also the real brother, during investigation was found innocent and put in column No.2. The challan was filed against the present petitioners. However, the charges were framed under Sections 307/341/324 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act. The petitioners and respondent No.2 are real brothers. However, the matter has been compromised between them due to the intervention of CRM M-38064 of 2010 -2- the respectable of the family. Compromise deed (Annexure P-5) has already been placed on record. The parties are present in the Court alongwith their respective counsel. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has placed on record the affidavit of respondent No.2 authenticating the compromise. As per the said affidavit, respondent No.2 has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. It is relevant to mention here that FIR No.55 dated 7.5.2010 under Sections 341/324/382/506 IPC at Police Station Sadar Ropar against the complainant Balwant Singh, has also been quashed on the basis of compromise vide order of even date passed in Crl. M. No.38065-M of 2010. Normally, this Court would have had reservation while quashing FIR under Section 307 IPC. However, peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case moved this Court to accept the compromise. The allegations in the FIR reads as under: “Stated that I am resident of above said address and agriculturist. On 6.3.2009, I alongwith Harinderjit Singh @ Bittu son of Sukhdev Singh resident of Village Awankot were going on motorcycle to Ropar for amy household work and finally reached village Dugri for purchasing of cow. After that I went to villae Awankot for leaving Harjinderjit Singh to his home. Thereafter, I was returning to my home on my motorcycle and when I reached in the area of village Ranjeet Pura at about 8.30 P.M. then Bhupinder Singh son of Ramji Dass resident of village Aviana Khurd alongwith 4-5 CRM M-38064 of 2010 -3- unknown persons stopped my motorcycle and started to gave beatings to me. I fell down alongwith my motorcycle on the earth surface. As a result of their blows to me, I suffered injuries on my head at leftside, on back side of neck and on left arm and hand. As a result of this assault I fell down and became unconscious. After 10-15 minutes on regaining consciousness. I informed my friend Gursewak Singh on telephone regarding occurrence. And after informing about the occurrence to him from my mobile I again became unconscious. Thereafter when I regained consciousness, then I saw that I was admitted at PGI Chandigarh. The cause of the said occurrence is previous grievance because there was a previous court case between us. Today, you got recorded my statement at PGI which is heard and is correct.” It is evident from the reading of the FIR that the present petitioners have not been named in the FIR. The only person named in the FIR is Bhupinder Singh. Bhupinder Singh is the real brother. The said Bhupinder Singh is found innocent. No weapon was used to inflict the injuries. The injuries were inflicted with blows. There is not an iota of allegation in the FIR that there was any intention to kill. It is therefore, not understood as to how the charges were framed under Section 307 IPC. While framing the charges under Section 307 IPC, it has been mentioned that the injuries were caused by means of sharp edged weapons whereas there is no mention that the persons in the FIR were armed with any weapon. In fact, it is specifically stated in the FIR that the complainant Balwant Singh fell down from the motor cycle on the earth surface. Thus, CRM M-38064 of 2010 -4- the injuries may be out come of the fall on the earth surface as well from the motorcycle. In case there was intention to kill, the accused would not have left him and gone. It is the case of the prosecution that he fell down unconscious and then got up himself after 15-20 minutes. The recovery of revolver is shown whereas it is not alleged in the FIR that the same was used or whether the accused were armed with the same. As such, Section 307 IPC is not made out by any stretch of imagination. Moreover, there are number of cases pending between the brothers. Balwant Singh had also filed Suit No.71 dated 29.4.2009 against his four brothers and father for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering in his possession over suit land and also dispossessing him forcibly. However, with the intervention of the respectables and gram panchayat, the matter was compromised and a statement to this effect was even reduced into writing before the learned Civil Court at Anandpur Sahib and the civil suit was withdrawn by the complainant. Even petitioner No.2 has also lodged FIR No.55 dated 7.5.2010 under Sections 341/324/382/506 IPC at Police Station Sadar Ropar against the complainant Balwant Singh, which has also now been settled. Apart from these two FIRs there are another two FIRs bearing No.19 dated 4.3.2010 which was lodged by kamaljit Kaur wife of Bhagwant Singh (brother of petitioners) against other brothers, which has also been settled. Another FIR bearing No.45 dated 1.5.2010 was lodged by Jaswant Singh another brother of the petitioners against each other, which also now forms part of settlement. With the intervention of the respectables and family friends all the brothers have amicably decided to settle all their civil and criminal disputes among themselves by way of compromise dated 6.12.2010. CRM M-38064 of 2010 -5- The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that 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 not only in matrimonial discord but others as well, such compromise deserves to be accepted. It is further held as under:- “ The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can 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.” In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008 (4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under:- “ 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 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 of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” CRM M-38064 of 2010 -6- In case, the compromise is not accepted just because the charges have been framed under Section 307 IPC, which are not even made out as held above, the entire compromise would fail and even the other matters which have been settled qua all other cases will have to be revoked. The compromise in the case in hand will not only allow the parties to sink their differences for ever but will put an end to the long drawn enmity between the real brothers. Moreover, they are residing in the same village. The compromise will not only help the immediate family but will help the future generation also to live in peace and protect them from falling prey to the enmity existing between the real brothers which in this side of the country, there is a tendency of the enmity being carried from generation to generation. In fact, in the facts of the present case, it would be in the interest of justice to accept the compromise for peace and harmony in the society. In view of this, it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to accept the compromise and exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.26 dated 9.3.2009 under Sections 341/323/148/149 IPC (Charges framed under Sections 307/341/324 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act) Police Station Sadar Ropar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 13.1.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE