IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-32338 of 2009 Date of decision : 24.12.2009 Ravi Kumar and Others …. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another …. Respondents Present: Mr. Arun Bakshi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S. Grewal, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate for the complainant/respondent No.2 with Tilak Raj (respondent No.2) in person. **** S.S. SARON, J. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.398 dated 11.10.2009 registered at Police Station Division No.6, Jalandhar for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 341, 506, 509, 148 and 149 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short) and Section 325 IPC which was added on 24.10.2009, on the basis of compromise dated 28.10.2009 (Annexure P1). On the last date of hearing, this Court had directed the parties to appear before the learned trial Court on 1.12.2009. The learned trial Court was to record a finding whether any voluntary compromise had been arrived at between the parties. The report of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar dated 12.12.2009 has been received in which it is stated that the statements of the Crl. Misc. No. M-32338 of 2009 [2] parties were recorded and from the said statements, it was found that the written compromise dated 28.10.2009 (Annexure P1) had been arrived at between the parties. On inquiry and after examining the parties, it was opined that the compromise was voluntary and without any undue influence and coercion. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Tilak Raj (respondent No.2) who has stated that on 7.10.2009 at around 10.00 a.m., he came out of his house for going to his work. His neighbours Ravi Kumar @ Monu (petitioner No.1) armed with kirpan, Sonu @ Sunil Kumar (petitioner No.2) armed with sanitary pipe, Sunny (petitioner No.3) armed with baseball bat, Kaka (petitioner No.4) armed with hockey and Surinder Kumar (petitioner No.5) empty handed were standing there. When the complainant tried to move ahead, the said petitioners blocked his way. Surinder Kumar (petitioner No.5) raised a lalkara that the “complainant should not go unharmed; catch him and give him a good taste”. On this, the petitioners caused injuries to the complainant with their respective weapons on the person of the complainant. When a hue and cry was raised by the complainant, all the petitioners along with their respective weapons fled from the scene. While running, they threatened the complainant with death. The mother of the complainant namely Darshana Devi arranged a vehicle and got him admitted in a Civil Hospital. The cause of the dispute was that Ravi Kumar @ Monu (petitioner No.1) was earlier on frequent visiting terms with the complainant. He (petitioner No.1), however, teased the complainant’s wife who told the complainant and his mother about this. Therefore, the complainant stopped Ravi Kumar @ Monu Crl. Misc. No. M-32338 of 2009 [3] (petitioner No.1) from coming to his house. The wife of the complainant also told him that Ravi Kumar @ Monu (petitioner No.1) makes obscene gestures as and when she goes out of the main gate or to the roof. The complainant then stopped Ravi Kumar @ Monu (petitioner No.1) from doing so and complained to his father, but he (petitioner No.1) did not stop. With this in mind, the petitioners had caused injuries to the complainant on 7.10.2009. Compromise efforts between them were going on but the same had failed. Now, the parties have amicably settled their dispute as they are neighbours. In terms of the compromise dated 28.10.2009 (Annexure P1), it is mentioned that both the parties have family relations with each other and are residing together in the same street. The dispute had occurred due to misunderstanding and Tilak Raj (respondent No.2) had got the case registered against the petitioners. The misunderstanding between them has been removed. Both the parties feel that if the case is prosecuted in Court, it will lead to bitter relations between the parties and would ruin the brotherhood. Therefore, for welfare of both parties as well as society, they have compromised the matter. The complainant has, therefore, no objection to the quashing of the FIR. The affidavit dated 28.10.2009 (Annexure P2) of the complainant is also being filed. The complainant Tilak Raj (respondent No.2) is present in Court and is identified by his counsel. He states that he has no objection to the quashing of the FIR. The FIR is in its initial stage and the challan in the case has not been filed. Crl. Misc. No. M-32338 of 2009 [4] In Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 this Court has been observed as follows:- “ 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 sued 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-32338 of 2009 [5] 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”. Besides, the Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 582 was observed as follows: “We need to emphasise 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-32338 of 2009 [6] to the matter based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” In the present case, indeed the dispute is personal in nature inasmuch as between two parties who are living together in the same street since long, therefore, to put the matter to an end and to avoid bitterness and rancour between them, it would be just and expedient to quash the FIR. Consequently, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and the FIR No.398 dated 11.10.2009 registered at Police Station Division No.6, Jalandhar for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 341, 506, 509, 148 and 149 IPC as also Section 325 IPC that was added on 25.10.2009 and all consequential and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom shall stand quashed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE December 24, 2009 amit