IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-11709 of 2011 Date of decision: 18th May, 2011 Baldeep Singh Swani and others … Petitioners Versus Vijay Kumar alias Gaurav … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Mahipal Biswas, Advocate for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of complaint No.317 dated 01.04.2009 instituted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Amritsar under Sections 307, 323, 324, 504, 506, 148 and 149 IPC; Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the SC and ST Act’) as well as the summoning order dated 22nd November, 2010 (Annexure P-2) passed therein, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3) arrived at between the parties. It is stated in the petition that the Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Amritsar vide his order (Annexure P-2) dated 22nd November, 2010 has summoned the petitioners to stand trial for offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST Act. Criminal Misc. No. M-11709 of 2011 Counsel for the petitioners, referring to the summoning order (Annexure P-2), has stated that the summoning Court on the basis of preliminary evidence has come to a definite conclusion that no offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is made out. The version divulged by the complainant and his witnesses has been noticed in para No.4 of the summoning order, which reads as under: “4. CW.1 Vijay Kumar has narrated the whole version as stated in the complaint. CW2 in his evidence has deposed that on 7.3.2009 he along with his friend Davinder Singh son of Jaswant Singh had gone to meet Vijay Kumar at Swani Motors. It was 5.30/6 PM. At that time Baldev Singh had asked the complainant to do the service of the doctor’s vehicle. The complainant told accused No.2 that his duty hours had been completed and his duty hours are from 9 AM to 5.30 PM. On this accused Baldev Singh started quarrelling and beating with the complainant. In the meanwhile accused No.1 and 3 reached at the spot they raised lalkara and said to the complainant “Parr Lavo Is Kute Chure Nu, Ihna Kutia Chamara Ne Gandh Paia Hai Te Tere Kute Chure Di Himmat Kiss Tarahn Pai Gadi Di service Di Nah Karan To, Tere Warge Lok Samaj Te Kalank Han, Tere Warge Kutian Churian, Dalitan Ne Gandh Paia Hoia Hai, Te Sarkar Ne Tahnu Sahooltian De Ke Sire Charia Hai.” Accused No.2 Baldeep Singh shots fires from his revolver towards the complainant with an intention to kill him. The complainant saved his life by sitting on the ground. Accused No.1 gave a dang blow to the complainant which struck on his left arm. CW2 further deposed that accused No.2 gave sotta blows which struck on the Chest, Back and legs of the complainant. On raising hue and cry some other mechanics also gathered there. Accused ran away from the spot saying that today the complainant had been saved if he again refused to work, he would be done to death. Accused said that they have approached up to the higher level. They would kill the 2 Criminal Misc. No. M-11709 of 2011 complainant and his body will be destroyed. CW3 Davinder Singh has also deposed on the same lines.” Quashing of the impugned complaint and the summoning order has been sought on the ground that during the pendency of the case the accused and the complainant have resolved their dispute amicably and have decided to bury the hatchet and promote amity, harmony and everlasting peace. Mr. Mahipal Biswas, Advocate has caused appearance on behalf of the respondent-complainant. He has also filed a reply to this petition by way of an affidavit of the complainant. It is stated in the affidavit that the complainant has no objection in case the complaint and the summoning order are quashed, as parties have decided to maintain cordial relations. This Court, in ‘Surta Ram and others v. State of Punjab and another’ 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 782, has considered the question whether on the basis of a compromise the proceedings initiated under the provisions of SC and ST Act can be quashed or not, and has answered the above question by observing as under: “5. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that since the dispute has been compromised, therefore, the present FIR along with all the subsequent proceedings be quashed. He has placed reliance on Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052. 6. On observations made by this Court that quashing of FIR along with all the subsequent proceedings, for the offences falling under the Act cannot be quashed as same is against public policy, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Usha Gupta v. Amir Chand, 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) 788 and Hawa Singh and others v. Bishamber Dayal, 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 325 to state that in these two cases where the accused have been 3 Criminal Misc. No. M-11709 of 2011 prosecuted for offence under the Act, prosecution has been quashed. In Usha Gupta's case (supra) a Single Bench of this Court had placed reliance upon Shankuntla Sahni v. Kaushalya Sahni, 1980(1) SCC 63. In Hawa Singh's case (supra) on basis of compromise, FIR was quashed. 7. Since the parties are co-villagers and if present FIR along with all subsequent proceedings is not quashed, there will be a simmering discontentment in the village. The Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was enacted to promote social harmony, so that fear of punishment act as deterrence to curb evil of caste exploitation. Compromise, between co-villagers is to be acknowledged, and granted due sanctity, so that wedge between parties no longer subsist. Therefore, taking larger interest of the parties in view and the ratio of Kulwinder Singh's case (supra), Usha Gupta's case (supra), Hawa Singh's case (supra), the present petition is accepted and the FIR along with all the subsequent proceedings is quashed.” Taking into account the compromise arrived at between the parties, which has been duly vouchsafed by counsel for the complainant, and the observations made in Surta Ram’s case (supra), present petition is accepted and consequently, the impugned complaint along with the summoning order and all subsequent proceedings is quashed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE May 18, 2011 rps 4