Crl. Misc. No. M-8196 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-8196 of 2009 Date of decision: 20.5.2009 Sukhmeet Singh @ Jimmi and others ….. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ….. Respondents Present: Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Ms. Supriya Jaswal, Advocate for respondent No.4 with respondent No.4 Malkeet Singh in person. **** S.S. SARON, J. Ms. Supriya Jaswal, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of Malkeet Singh (respondent No.4). The Vakalatnama filed by her in Court today is taken on record. Malkeet Singh (respondent No.4) is present in Court and is identified by his counsel. It is stated by him that he has no objection to the quashing of FIR (Annexure P1) on the basis of compromise dated 20.3.2009 (Annexure P2). It is submitted that the statement is being made by him of his own free will and desire and without any kind of pressure or undue influence. Reply on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 filed by the State counsel in Court today is taken on record. It is submitted that the challan in the case has not been filed. Crl. Misc. No. M-8196 of 2009 [2] Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.112 dated 20.11.2008 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur for the offences under Sections 341, 324, 323/34 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short) and Section 326 IPC which was added later on the basis of compromise dated 20.3.2009 (Annexure P2) entered into between the petitioners and the complainant Malkeet Singh (respondent No.4). The petitioners and respondent No.4 are young boys in the age group of 21 to 25 years. It is submitted that due to some misunderstanding, they had quarreled amongst themselves and respondent No.4 Malkeet Singh got the FIR (Annexure P1) registered against the petitioners. It is stated by Malkeet Singh (respondent No.4) that on 17.11.2008, he and his father’s younger brother’s (chacha’s) son Manjinder Singh came to Dasuya City for personal work. While in the city one of his friends Monu met him. After finishing their work, they were going back to their village Hamja on their motorcycle. The complainant was driving the motorcycle and Manjinder Singh was riding pillion. At about 8.30 p.m. when they reached near the shop run by Gurdial Singh at Miani road Dasuya then Sobi son of Mohan Lal met them. He stopped the motorcycle of the complainant/respondent No.4 and Manjinder Singh from going further. He raised a lalkara asking Sukhmeet Singh @ Jimmi to come on as he had encircled Malkeet Singh (respondent No.4) Then Sobi son of Mohan Lal took out a ‘datt’ from his pocket and Sukhmeet Singh @ Jimmi was having a ‘datt’, besides, Pali who was having ‘kirpan’ also reached there. Then Sobi son of Mohan Lal caught hold of the complainant from his arms and Sukhmeet Singh @ Jimmi gave a straight blow with his ‘datt’ on the front side of the forehead of the complainant Malkeet Singh (respondent No.4). He raised a hue and cry of being killed. Then Manjinder Singh and Monu who were standing with the complainant started rescuing him. Then Pali gave a blow with the reverse side of his ‘kirpan’ on the left ear of the complainant and Sobi gave a blow with the reverse Crl. Misc. No. M-8196 of 2009 [3] side of his ‘datt’ which hit under his (complainant’s) left ear. Had Manjinder and Monu standing along with the complainant/respondent No.4 not rescued him, then the assailants would have killed him. The said three accused after causing injuries to the complainant/respondent No.4 ran away along with their respective weapons. Manjinder Singh arranged a vehicle and got the complainant Malkeet Singh (respondent No.4) admitted in the Civil Hospital, Dasuya where after giving him first aid, he was referred to DMC, Ludhiana. The cause of enmity was that on 30.10.2008, Malkeet Singh (respondent No.4) had a fight with Sukhmeet Singh on account of which he had got FIR No.109, dated 7.11.2008 registered against Malkeet Singh (respondent No.4) for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 506, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station Dasuya. Due to the said enmity and with the intention of taking revenge, injuries had been caused. The FIR was initially registered on 20.11.2008 for the offences under Sections 341, 324, 323/34 IPC. The medico-legal examination of the complainant Malkeet Singh (respondent No.4) was conducted on 17.11.2008. In respect of injury No.1, x-ray was advised. Thereafter, opinion of Dr. Bhupinder Singh with regard to the said injury was obtained and he declared injury No.1 as ‘grievous’ in nature. Accordingly, vide DDR No.21 dated 16.2.2009 offence under Section 326 IPC was added. The offences other than the offence under Section 326 IPC are compoundable. The petitioners and respondent No.4 have entered into a compromise on 20.3.2009 (Annexure P2). The same was reached at with the intervention of their relatives, respectable persons and Panchayat members of the village. In the compromise (Annexure P2), the offence under Section 341 IPC, it is stated, has inadvertently been missed out but the same is compoundable by the person aggrieved. In terms of the compromise (Annexure P2), respondent No.4 has agreed to withdraw the case FIR (Annexure P1) which he got registered against the petitioners. The FIR is at the investigating stage and challan has not yet been filed. Crl. Misc. No. M-8196 of 2009 [4] Learned counsel for the State has submitted that on the basis of CT report of DMC Hospital, Ludhiana, there was a fracture of frontal bone on the person Malkeet Singh (respondent No.4) which makes out an offence under Section 326 IPC and being not a compoundable offence, the FIR is not liable to be quashed. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the dispute in the present case is personal in nature between young boys of the same area. The petitioners and respondent No.4 have amicably decided to resolve their dispute. No doubt the offence under Section 326 IPC is non-compounable, however, the same would not preclude this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR on the basis of compromise. This is more so for the reason that the parties have settled their dispute. In Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 582 it was observed by the Supreme Court as follows: “We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where by 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 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 realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” Besides, a larger Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 observed as follows:- Crl. Misc. No. M-8196 of 2009 [5] “ 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. 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 CrPC 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 CrPC 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”. Crl. Misc. No. M-8196 of 2009 [6] Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that the matter has been compromised, no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the proceedings when the end results are known. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and the case FIR No. 112 dated 20.11.2008 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Dasuya District Hoshiarpur for the offences under Sections 341, 324, 323, 326/34 IPC and all consequential and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom shall stand quashed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE May 20, 2009 amit