IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc M- 36119 of 2009 Date of decision: 24.2.2010 Jarnail Singh and anr …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and anr …Respondents Present: Mr Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr Shilesh Gupta, DAG Punjab. Ms Sukhpreet Kaur, Advocate for respondent-2. S.S.SARON, J. This order will dispose of Criminal Misc M-36119 of 2009 filed by Jarnail Singh and anr and Criminal Misc M-36347 of 2009 filed by Ramesh Singh and anr, as both these petitions arise out the cross-cases filed by the parties against each other. In Criminal Misc M-36119 of 2009, on the statement of Ramesh Singh – respondent-2 in the said petition, case FIR 132 dated 30.10.2009 (P1) has been registered at PS Mehatpur, District Jalandhar for the offences under Sections 324, 326 and 34 IPC. It is alleged by Ramesh Singh that on 28.10.2009 at about 1.30 p.m. he was doing work in his fields situated at Raipur Gujran. Then Jarnail Singh son of Kala Singh was demolishing the ‘Watt’ (common boundary in the fields). The complainant – Ramesh Singh prevented him from cutting the boundary, then Jarnail Singh along with his brother – Balbir Singh armed with ‘kahis’ (spades) came there and Jarnail Singh raised a ‘lalkara’ that Ramesh Singh be killed Cr Misc M- 36119 of 2009 2 as he has prevented them from demolishing the ‘watt’ (common boundary). Balbir Singh gave a spade blow on Ramesh Singh which hit on the left side of his head and Jarnail Singh gave fist blows, which were not visible. Then Ramesh Singh raised a hue and cry of ‘maar ditta maar ditta’. On hearing the noise, his brothers – Ashok Kumar and Raj Kumar reached the spot who witnessed the occurrence and the assailants fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. Ramesh Singh has suffered only one injury which has been observed to be an incised wound 6 x 1 cm on the left parietal region, bone deep with profuse bleeding. The same has been opined to be grievous in nature. In criminal Misc M-36347 of 2009, the cross-version has been registered in pursuance of DDR 16 dated 31.10.2009 (P1) on the statement of Jarnail Singh who is respondent-2 in this petition. It is stated that on 28.10.2009 at about 1.30 p.m., Ramesh Singh, Ashok Kumar and Raj Kumar sons of Khushal Singh had demolished the ‘watt’ (common boundary in the fields) adjoining to their land situated at Raipur Gujran. The complainant had prevented them from doing so. Then Ramesh Singh, Ashok Kumar and Raj Kumar armed with spades came at the spot. Ramesh Singh raised a ‘lalkara’ that he will be taught a lesson for preventing them from demolishing the ‘watt’. Ashok Kumar gave a spade blow on Jarnail Singh, which hit him on the thigh of left leg. Then Raj Kumar gave a spade blow which hit him on the calf of the left leg. He raised an alarm of ‘maar ditta maar ditta’ and on hearing the noise, Balbir Singh and Kashmir Singh came at the spot and witnessed the occurrence. The assailants i.e. Ramesh Singh, Ashok Kumar and Raj Kumar after causing injuries, fled away with their respective weapons. Balbir Singh – brother of Jarnail Singh got him admitted in the Civil Hospital after arranging a vehicle. Cr Misc M- 36119 of 2009 3 As per the medical evidence of Jarnail Singh, there are 2 injuries i.e. parallel linear incised wound 8 cm long, placed obliquely on the anteriolateral aspect of the left leg upper 1/3rd and linear abrasion 4x0.25 cm on the lateral aspect of the left thigh. Now both the parties have amicably resolved their differences and a compromise deed dated 7.12.2009 has been recorded, which is placed on record as Annexure P2 in Criminal Misc M-36119 of 2009 and Annexure P3 in Criminal Misc M-36347 of 2009. It is mentioned that after registration of the case, good sense has prevailed upon both the parties and with the intervention of respectables a compromise has been effected that both the parties would approach the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR. Ramesh Singh has filed an affidavit in Court today that he has no objection to the quashing of the FIR 132 dated 30.10.2009 (P1) registered at PS Mehatpur for the offences under Sections 326, 324 and 34 IPC. Jarnail Singh (respondent-2 in Criminal Misc M-36347 of 2009) has also filed an affidavit dated 7.11.2009 to the effect that a compromise has been effected between the parties and the parties have agreed to get their cases quashed. It is submitted that the deponent Jarnail Singh has no objection if the cross-case registered against the petitioners in the said petition is quashed. Both the parties namely Jarnail Singh and Balbir Singh as also Ramesh Singh, Raj Kumar and Ashok Kumar are present in Court with their respective counsel and are identified by them. Both the counsel have submitted that the parties have no objection to the quashing of the respective cases. Learned counsel for the State submits that challan in the case has not been filed and in case the parties have amicably settled their Cr Misc M- 36119 of 2009 4 disputes, the State would have no serious objection to the quashing of the FIR. It may be noticed that the parties are neighbours in the village. They have adjoining fields. Besides, they have common ‘watts’ (boundary between the fields). Therefore, in order to maintain peace and amity in the village as also to enable the parties to live amicably in future, it would be just and expedient if the FIR and the cross-case filed by the respective complainants against each others, are quashed. This is more so for the reason that the dispute is purely personal in nature. In Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582, it was observed by the Supreme Court as follows: “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 realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” A larger Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Cr.) 1052 (5 Judges) has observed as follows: “27. The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be Cr Misc M- 36119 of 2009 5 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 Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 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 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.” Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the fact that the parties have decided to bury their past and live in the village peacefully, both the petitions are allowed and case FIR 132 dated 30.10.2009 registered at PS Mehatpur as also the cross-case in pursuance of DDR 16 dated Cr Misc M- 36119 of 2009 6 31.10.2009 registered at PS Mehatpur and all consequential and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom shall stand quashed. 24.2 .2010 ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge