IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M. No.M-3375 of 2010 Date of Decision:4.2.2010 Jasbir Singh and anr. .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and Anr. .... Respondents And Crl. M. No.M-13819 of 2009 Date of Decision:4.2.2010 Harbhajan Singh and ors. .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and Anr. .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. P.L. Singla, Advocate. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The instant petitions have been filed for quashing of FIR No.349 dated 10.10.2004 registered under Sections 307, 323, 324, 34 IPC at Police Station Banga, District Nawanshahr as well as counter version given in the aforesaid FIR and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The brief facts of this case are that the land in dispute had been taken on lease from its owners Ajit Singh and Mohan Singh sons of Ujagar Singh. Both the parties herein asserted that the paddy crop and basmati crop were planted by them due to which a clash took place between Crl. M. No.M-3375 of 2010 -2- the parties on 27.9.2004 for which an FIR No.328 dated 28.9.2004 under Sections 447/427/506/511/148/149 IPC was registered at Police Station Banga by Jasbir Singh and Gurjit Singh. The said FIR was quashed by this Court in Crl. Misc. No.M-1354 of 2009 vide Order dated 19.11.2009. Subsequently, a dispute with regard to the harvesting of paddy crop again erupted and both the parties caused injuries to each others. Malkiat Singh son of Charan Singh sustained injuries and an FIR No.349 dated 10.10.2004 for the offences under Sections 307/323/324/34 IPC was registered against Jasbir Singh and his brother Surjit Singh. Thereafter, Gurjit Singh father of Jasbir Singh got the counter version recorded during the investigation. After the investigation, offence under Section 307 was deleted and both the parties were only challaned under Sections 326,325,324,323,34 IPC. Even otherwise, the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties. Both the parties are residing in the same village. They were having very cordial and harmonious relationship prior to the dispute. The matter has since been compromised. As per the compromise, both the parties have agreed to put an end to the litigation and undertook to withdrew criminal cases filed by them. Compromise deed has also been placed on record as Annexure P-2. Vide order dated 19.5.2009, parties were directed to appear before the trial Court on 2.6.2009 and the trial Court was directed to record a finding whether parties have arrived at a volunteer compromise or not. In pursuance to the aforesaid direction, learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn) Nawanshahar, has submitted his report dated 16.7.2009. As per the report, all the injured witnesses namely Malkiat Singh, Bhajan Singh and Jhilman Crl. M. No.M-3375 of 2010 -3- Singh have made their statements to the effect that they had suffered injuries in this case but the matter has since been compromised due to the intervention of respectable of the village. It is further stated that the compromise has been reached between them voluntarily as the Court had satisfied itself that there was no exchange of money for compromise and there was also no threat or coercion or any promise to the injured witnesses for effecting compromise which has been effected with the intervention of respectable. In the cross version case, State versus Malkiat Singh, in the same FIR, statement of Jasbir Singh, who is only injured, has also been recorded. Other witnesses namely Gurjeet Singh and Ram Tirath were not injured witnesses. Gurjit Singh was the complainant in the cross version. The statement of Jasvarinder Singh son of Jagtar Singh, Special Power of Attorney of Gurjit Singh is recorded. He has no objection if the connected cross version case against petitioner in same FIR No.349 dated 10.10.2004 is quashed. The Special Power of Attorney has been taken on record. Thus, the matter has also been compromised in the cross version in the same FIR. 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 held that 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 reduces friction, then it truly is “finest hour of justice”. Disputes which have their genesis not only in matrimonial discord but others as well, such compromise deserves to be Crl. M. No.M-3375 of 2010 -4- accepted. It is further held as under:- “ 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.” In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008 (4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under:- “ We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the 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 that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” In view of the settled position of law, in the facts of the present case, it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to accept the compromise and exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR in the interest of justice to promote peace and harmony. The compromise is entered into without any pressure. The parties are co-villagers. Accordingly, the instant petitions are allowed and FIR No.349 Crl. M. No.M-3375 of 2010 -5- dated 10.10.2004 registered under Sections 307, 323, 324, 34 IPC at Police Station Banga, District Nawanshahr as well as counter version given on the basis of statement of Gurjit Singh given in the aforesaid FIR and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. A photo copy of this order be placed on the connected case. 4.2.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE