CRM M 6583 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- Date of decision: 18.04.2011 1. CRM M 6583 of 2011 Sukhwinder Singh and others ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) 2. CRM M 6949 of 2011 Khushi Ram and others ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. G S Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner (CRM M 6583 of 2011) Mr. Raman Walia, Advocate for the petitioners (CRM M 6949 of 2011 Mr. J S Brar, AAG, Punjab Mr. G S Bhatia, Advocate for the respondents (CRM M 6949 of 2011) Mr. Raman Walia, Advocate for the respondents (CRM M 6583 of 2011 -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? CRM M 6583 of 2011 2 Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) Both the aforesaid petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the same arise out of the same FIR. In CRM M 6583 of 2011, the petitioners sought for quashing of FIR No. 201 dated 06.10.2001 under Sections 326, 325, 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC, P S Banur and conviction order dated 07.09.2010 passed by trial Court on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. Whereas, in CRM M 6949 of 2011 , the petitioners have prayed for quashing of cross version case registered under Section 326, 325, 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC in the said FIR and also conviction order dated 07.09.2010 passed by the trial Court on the basis of the compromise. In the present case, the said FIR was registered on the statement of Khushi Ram with the allegation that on 05.10.2001 at about 9.30 p.m. accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and caused grievous hurt as well as simple hurt with sharp edged weapon like gandasi etc. and blunt weapons like lathies on the person of Khushi Ram, Jarnail Singh and Bhagat Singh etc. and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC. However, in CRM M 6949 of 2011, cross version was also registered on the statement of Sukhwinder Singh. Later on, persons from both the side (petitioners herein) were convicted and sentenced to undergo SI for 10 days under Section 326 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and one year RI under Section 148 IPC vide judgment dated 07.09.2010 passed by the trial Court. Against the order of conviction, the petitioners have filed their respective appeals before the Learned Sessions Court. The same are still CRM M 6583 of 2011 3 pending. However, during the pendency of the said appeals, the matter has been compromised between the parties and versioner as well as cross versioner are not interested in pursuing the their cases. Khushi Ram and Sukhwinder Singh filed their respective replies by way of affidavit, stating therein, that they have no objection if the version and cross version is quashed. The Apex Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another reported as 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 910, while quashing the FIR and all proceedings arising out of the same held that the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. In that case also, the petitioners were convicted under Section 498-A IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment of 18 months. An appeal was filed against the conviction order and during the pendency of the appeal, the parties had settled their differences. However, they filed petition before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of the complaint as well as conviction order on account of the compromise. The High Court dismissed the same. Aggrieved, they challenged the same before the Apex Court. The Apex Court accepted the compromise and quashed the FIR and all the proceedings arising out of the same, as well as order of conviction. This Court in the case of Sukhwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2008 (3) RCR (Criminal) 991, while relying upon the judgment of Khursheed and another v. State of U.P. and another, 2007 (4) RCR (Criminal) 495 allowed the petitioners to compound the offence under Section 452 IPC during the pendency of the appeal. CRM M 6583 of 2011 4 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 observed as under:- “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 reduced 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 exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.” Taking into account the allegation in the FIR, the compromise as well as the affidavit of the complainants, authenticating the said compromise, there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C and to accept the compromise to allow the parties to live amicably which shall reduce the friction in the society and promote peace and harmony. In view of the foregoing discussion as well as the compromise, the parties are allowed to compound the offence. Accordingly, the parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Court, where the appeal is pending. Thereafter, the Appellate Court shall pass appropriate order in the light of the permission granted by this Court to the parties to compound the offence. CRM M 6583 of 2011 5 Allowed in the aforesaid terms. Photo copy of the order be placed on the connected file. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 18.04.2011 mohan