In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... (1) Criminal Misc. No.M-21147 of 2008 ..... Date of decision:19.1.2010 Sarbrinder Singh alias Ginni and another .....Petitioners v. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents .... (2) Criminal Misc. No.M-34534 of 2009 ..... Sarabjit Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. K.D.S. Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3 in both the petitions. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This order will dispose of Criminal Misc. No.M-21147 of 2008 filed by Sarbrinder Singh alias Ginni son of Dharam Singh and Satpal Singh son of Billu Ram as also Criminal Misc. No.M-34534 of 2009 filed by Sarabjit Singh son of Bhupinder Singh all residents of Village Dhrangwala, Tehsil Abohar, District Ferozepur whereby the petitioners seek quashing of Cr. Misc. No.M-21147/2008 and Cr. Misc. No.M-34534 of 2009 [2] case FIR No.216 dated 30.9.2006 registered at Police Station Sadar, Abohar, District Ferozepur for the offences under Sections 452, 324, 323, 148, 149/34 Indian Penal Code (`IPC' – for short) (Sections 452, 148/149 IPC have since been deleted during investigation). The quashing of the FIR has been sought on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Amritlal Singh (respondent No.2). It is alleged that father of the complainant-Amritlal Singh has purchased 2 Kanals of land from Lakhbir Singh and both the brothers were living separately with their families by constructing a house in the said land. Their parents were also residing with them. On 29.9.2006, there was a tea-party in the village in the house of Dara Singh Lahoria on the occasion of birth of his grandson. The father of the complainant went for the party to the house of Dara Singh. Ginni alias Sarbrinder Singh was present there at the tea-party and a heated argument ensued between the father of the complainant and Ginni alias Sarbrinder Singh. However, the persons present there pacified them. On the same evening i.e. 29.9.2006 at about 7.45/8.00 p.m., the complainant was present at his house with his younger brother Veer Singh. Then Ginni alias Sarbrinder Singh called the father's name of the complainant. While the complainant was coming out of his house, he saw that Ginni alias Sarbrinder Singh was carrying an axe. There were 8-9 boys with him. They had swords, sticks and dangs. The complainant was pulled outside from his arm and thrown down on the ground by Ginni alias Sarbrinder Singh who gave an axe blow which was stopped by the complainant with his left hand. Cr. Misc. No.M-21147/2008 and Cr. Misc. No.M-34534 of 2009 [3] The axe blow landed straight on the palm of the left hand. On hearing him shouting, Nasib Kaur (respondent No.3)-mother of the complainant came out and then the boys who had come along with Ginni alias Sarbrinder Singh gave two stick blows to her and took the complainant towards the colony side while beating him. During this time, on hearing shouts of a fight, the residents of the colony had gathered. The complainant got an opportunity to get himself freed and ran to the house of Pokhar Ram. Had he not run away, they would have caused more injuries to him. On this, when Ginni alias Sarbrinder Singh heard the noise of the residents of the colony, he along with his accomplices fled away in the jeep with their weapons. Then Veer Singh brother of the complainant after arranging a vehicle got him admitted in Civil Hospital, Abohar. This entire incident had been witnessed by his wife Paramjit Kaur, his mother Nasib Kaur (respondent No.3) and his brother Veer Singh. Cause of enmity was that Ginni alias Sarbrinder Singh wanted to take revenge for the heated arguments that had ensued between Ginni alias Sarbrinder Singh and the father of the complainant in the house of Dara Singh. Because of this Ginni alias Sarbrinder Singh along with his accomplices had also caused injuries to Nasib Kaur (respondent No.3). Now the matter between the parties has been compromised. It is submitted that the FIR in question is the result of misunderstanding which had occurred during the altercation. Affidavit (Annexure-P.1) of the complainant Amritlal Singh (respondent No.2) and affidavit (Annexure-P.2) of the injured-Nasib Kaur (respondent No.3) have been placed on record. It is accepted by them that both the parties have compromised the matter. Cr. Misc. No.M-21147/2008 and Cr. Misc. No.M-34534 of 2009 [4] A reply on behalf of the State has been filed by Shri Tarun Rattan, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Abohar, District Ferozepur. It is submitted that during investigation the offences under Sections 452, 148/149 IPC were deleted. Besides, the compromise between the complainant and the accused, it is stated, has no affect on the proceedings in question. In order to ascertain the bona fides of the compromise, this Court vide order dated 8.12.2009 had ordered that the statements owning up the compounding shall be made before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Abohar on 16.12.2009. After recording the statements, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate was asked to forward the papers to the Registry of this Court. The necessary statements recorded by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, have been received. Statement of Amritpal Singh (sic. Amritlal Singh) (respondent No.2) and Nasib Kaur (respondent No.3) have been recorded. Both of them had stated that they have no objection to the quashing of the FIR. The witnesses were identified by their counsel. In the trial of the case, the charge has been framed and no witness has been recorded so far. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners and the complainant side are immediate neighbours and, therefore, to maintain good neighbourly relations, the FIR is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents No.2 and 3 have submitted that in order to maintain peace and amity in the neighbourhood, it would be just and expedient that the FIR is quashed. In Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582, Cr. Misc. No.M-21147/2008 and Cr. Misc. No.M-34534 of 2009 [5] 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 of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” The following observations in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Cr.) 1052 (5 Judges) are also apposite: “27. 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 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 Cr. Misc. No.M-21147/2008 and Cr. Misc. No.M-34534 of 2009 [6] 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.” In the present case the matter has been amicably settled. The parties are neighbours. Therefore, to enable them to maintain cordial and good neighbourly relations, it would be just and expedient to put an end to their dispute by quashing the FIR. Even otherwise, the continuation of proceedings in pursuance of the impugned FIR would be an exercise in futility as the end result is known. In the circumstances, it would be just and expedient that the FIR is quashed. Accordingly, both the criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed and the impugned FIR No.216 dated 30.9.2006 registered at Police Station Sadar Abohar, District Ferozepur shall stand quashed. January 19, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*