In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc.-M No.30438 of 2008 ..... Date of decision:21.1.2009 Prem Singh and others .....Petitioners v. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Arun Singla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. Shri Balbir Singh Jaswal, Advocate for respondent No.2 with respondent No.2 in person. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.46 dated 2.3.2008 (Annexure-P.1) registered at Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur for the offences under Sections 324, 323, 148, 149 and 326 Indian Penal Code and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 19/22.7.2008 (Annexure-P.2) entered into between the petitioners and respondent No.2 (complainant). The FIR (Annexure-P.1) in the case has been registered on the statement of Om Parkash (respondent No.2-complainant). It has been alleged by him that he is a resident of Village Pandori Rukman, Nai Abadi, Cr. Misc.-M No.30438 of 2008 [2] Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur. On 28.2.2008, he was going from his house on the way to Hotel Nirbhay Singh. At about 6.00 p.m. when he reached the rear side of Sonalika Paint Factory then Prem Singh (petitioner No.1) armed with `Datar', besides Kewal Kumar (petitioner No.2), Balbir Kumar (petitioner No.3), Dev Raj (petitioner No.4) and Rajan Virdi (petitioner No.5) empty handed suddenly appeared. Balbir Kumar (petitioner No.3) shouted to teach a lesson to the complainant (respondent No.2) as he was standing witness against them. In the meantime when Prem Singh (petitioner No.1) was about to attack on the chest of the complainant with his armed `Datar' that the complainant raised his left arm in his defence and the `Kirpan' blow hit him on the left arm. Thereafter, Prem Singh (petitioner No.1) again attacked on the head of the complainant with his `Datar' and the complainant raised his arm in self-defence and the blow hit inside the left hand on the centre fingers of the complainant. Kewal Kumar (petitioner No.2), Rajan Virdi (petitioner No.5) and Dev Raj (petitioner No.4) gave blows with clenched fists on the waist and stomach of the complainant. The complainant raised an alarm, on hearing which Surjit Singh son of Milkha Singh and Puran Singh son of Milkha Singh came at the spot. On seeing them, the assailants fled away from the spot. Thereafter, Puran Singh arranged a vehicle and got the complainant admitted at Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur. The cause of the grievance was that the complainant had given evidence against the brother of Dev Raj (petitioner No.4). Injustice had been done to him, he prayed that action be taken as compromise had not been effected till then. The said statement of the complainant was recorded on Cr. Misc.-M No.30438 of 2008 [3] 3.3.2008 i.e. after about three days after the incident that had occurred on 28.2.2008. Besides, it is stated in the FIR that compromise had not been effected till then. It is now stated that the matter has been compromised between the parties in terms of the compromise dated 19/22.7.2008 (Annexure-P.2). The compromise has been effected with the intervention of respectable and panchayat members of the village. The parties now have no grievance against each other. Om Parkash (complainant-respondent No.2) is present in Court and is identified by his counsel Shri Balbir Singh Jaswal, Advocate. Om Parkash has filed his affidavit dated 21.1.2009, which is taken on record. It has been deposed in the said affidavit that with the intervention of relatives and the respectable of the area he has entered into a compromise with the accused, namely, Prem Singh, Dev Raj, Kewal Kumar, Rajan Virdi and Balbir Kumar (petitioners). In this regard the compromise deed dated 19.7.2008 (Annexure-P.2) has been recorded which is attested by the Notary Public, Hoshiarpur on 22.7.2008. Om Parkash has submitted that the parties are of the same village and he himself is a Panch. Therefore, in order to maintain peace and harmony in the village the compromise has been entered into. He has now no ill-will against the petitioners. It is submitted that the FIR may be quashed. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that as per the medical report dated 28.2.2008 the complainant (respondent No.2) suffered four injuries and injury No.1 only has been found to be grievous in nature. The other injuries it is submitted are simple in nature. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter and with Cr. Misc.-M No.30438 of 2008 [4] the assistance of the counsel gone through the records. It may be noticed that the petitioners and the complainant (respondent No.2) are of the same village. Injuries that had been suffered by the complainant (respondent No.2) are on the hand which is on a non-vital part. The doctor examined the injuries of the complainant on 12.3.2008 and as regards injury No.1 it was opined as follows:- “(1) Injury No.1. Grievous in nature. However, the X-Ray report and Ortho opinion showed that there are two incomplete cuts on the bony cortex.” In fact, injury No.1 was described as an incised wound 9.8 x 1.2 cm. incised obliquely present on the Fronto Medio Dorsal aspect of lower half of left forearm. It is wound deep. Besides, despite being opined to be grievous in nature the X-ray and Ortho opinion showed that there were two incomplete cuts on the bony cortex. It may also be noticed that except Prem Singh (petitioner No.1) the other accused (petitioners) were empty handed and had caused simple injuries. The parties themselves have entered into compromise. The question whether a case which is not compoundable can be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been considered by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulvinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Cr.) 1052 wherein it has been observed as follows:- “28. The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behavior. 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 Cr. Misc.-M No.30438 of 2008 [5] 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 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.” A perusal of the above shows that even in respect of non- compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 Cr.P.C. the FIR may be quashed in order to secure the ends of justice. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners and the complainant are co-villagers, it would be just and expedient in order to maintain peace and harmony in the village and in the facts and circumstances that the FIR is quashed. Besides, it is also not in dispute that challan in the case has not so far been filed. In Cr. Misc.-M No.30438 of 2008 [6] the facts and circumstances, the trial of the case would be an exercise in futility as the result would be well known. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served to carry out mere rituals. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and FIR No.46 dated 2.3.2008 (Annexure-P.1) registered at Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur for the offences under Sections 324, 323, 148, 149 and 326 IPC and all consequential and subsequent proceedings arising in pursuance thereof shall stand quashed. January 21, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*