Crl. Misc. No. M-5506 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-5506 of 2011 Date of decision : 21.04.2011 Yash Garg and others ......Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Ms. Priya Deepika Kalia, , Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder Singh Brar, AAG, Punjab for respondent No. 1-State Mr. Deepak Kumar Garg, Advocate for the complainant/respondent Nos. 2 to 7 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.68 dated 18.03.2009 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 452, 448, 511, 506, 427, 148, 149 of IPC, registered at Police Station Barnala and challan presented against the present petitioners (Annexure P2) for offence under Section 307 IPC on the statement of Balwinder Singh @ Papu all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 29.01.2011 (Annexure P-3), entered between the parties. Brief facts of the case are that complainant-Balwinder Singh @ Papu is doing agriculture. He purchased one plot situated at Barnala opposite side of Chhaju Roshan Da Karkhana, Khudi Road, Barnala from Saroj Bala, Gali No. 6, K.C. Road, Barnala measuring 5 ¾ marlas from Saroj Bala vide registry on 12.3.2009. On 18.3.209 at about 3 ½ P.M, he Crl. Misc. No. M-5506 of 2011 -2- along Joginder Singh, Darshan Singh, Balwinder Singh, Jagdeep Singh and Gurbakshishi singh went on his Gypsy PB-47-B-9295 to see the above mentioned plot and measuring the same. When they broke the door of the plot for cleaning then the petitioner with his sons Yash Garg and Ravi Garg and Piarae Lal Riasaria were standing on the roof and they have the arms and started firing towards them about a distance of about 25/30 yards. So, the complainants moved backward. In this firing, Sharras were fit, on the palm of respondent No. 2/complainant and right knee and on the back side of left armpit of Darshan Singh, in middle of forehead of Balwinder Singh and on the left ankle of Jagdeep Singh. Gurwinder Singh has also received sharras. Thereafter, complainants went from the spot by jumping upon the wall to save their life. They left some implements of constructions and Harpreet Singh arranged the vehicle and got admitted them in the Civil Hospital. After registration of F.I.R, challan was presented against all the the petitioners but in challan petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 were shown to be in column No. 2 and petitioner No. 1 is arrayed as accused in the said challan prepared on the basis of subsequent statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C (Annexure P1). Thereafter, petitioners were challaned by the police vide Annexure P2 for the offence under Section 307 IPC. It is made out that the injuries suffered by Gurwinder Singh, Balwinder Singh, Darshan Singh and Jagdeep Singh. All the injured had receive injuries due to fire arm. Two F.I.Rs were out of the same occurrence. In the present case, challan was presented under Section 307 of IPC as all the injured had received injuries due to fire-arm. The injured are Gurwinder Singh, Balwinder Singh, Darshan Singh and Jagdeep Singh. In the present case, Crl. Misc. No. M-5506 of 2011 -3- the cause of fight between both the parties was that the accused Yash Garg and others were nursing a grudge against Balwinder Singh @ Pappu- complainant for purchase of a plot. The case of dispute was civil in nature and this Court is of the view that there was no intention of the accused to kill the complainant-Balwinder Singh and others. Even though firm-arms were used but no grievous injuries have been suffered by the injured. Since there was no intention to kill, therefore, no offence under Section 307 is made out Both the petitioner and respondent belongs to local police Barnala and socially meet each other and now they do not want to keep enmity in the minds and want to live peacefully in harmony with each other. As per the affidavit of petitioner No. 1., mother of petitioner No. 1 has undertaken to withdraw the civil suit filed against the respondents pending in the Barnala Court with regards to plot of the respoondents so that the compromise can be effected between the parties. It has been further agreed by both the parties that they will file the quashing petition immediately before this Court and both will gave the required statements with the pleasure and free consent. They are further bound to make signatures and thumb impressions as both the parties want to live peacefully. In compliance of order dated 02.02.2011, Addl. Sessions Judge, Barnala has sent its report. As per this report, statements of both the parties have been recorded in which they have specifically mentioned that they have entered into compromise at the instance of village panchayat and relatives which was reduced into writing on 29.01.2011 and placed on record the original compromise (Ex.C1). So, the compromise is held to be Crl. Misc. No. M-5506 of 2011 -4- fair and genuine. In the peculiar facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that since both the parties resides in the same village and they have undertaken to withdraw the civil suit with regard to the plot. The compromise is held to be genuine and fair. This Court has accepted the compromise in cross case and the F.I.R was quashed. So this Court sees no reason to quash the above said F.I.R in the present case. Broad guidelines have been lid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh ad Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 for quashing the prosecution when parties entered into compromise. The Full Bench has observed that this power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- “26. In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, (1980)1 SCC 63, Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the essence of compromise in the following words :- “The finest hour of justice arrived propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.” 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-5506 of 2011 -5- donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of justice. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) if 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 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 emity 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.” The ratio of the Full Bench judgment is a special reference which has been made to the offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide where the victim dies in the course of transaction would fall in the category where compounding may not be permitted. Heinous offences like highway robbery, dacoity or a case involving clear- cut allegations of rape should also fall in the prohibited category. However, the offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide Crl. Misc. No. M-5506 of 2011 -6- may be permitted to be compounded when the Court is in the position to record a finding that the settlement between the parties is voluntary and fair. The Court must examine the cases of weaker and vulnerable victims with necessary caution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429 has examined a case where quashing was sought of an FIR under Section 406 IPC being non-compoundable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :- “1. No useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise – There was no possibility of conviction. 2 It is advisable that in the disputes where question involved is of purely personal nature and no public policy is involved – Court should ordinarily accept the compromise. 3. Keeping the matter alive with no possibility of conviction is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford.” Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (supra) and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), FIR No.68 dated 18.03.2009 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 452, 448, 511, 506, 427, 148, 149 of IPC, registered at Police Station Barnala and challan presented against the present petitioners (Annexure P2) for offence under Section 307 IPC on the statement of Balwinder Singh @ Papu are quashed with all Crl. Misc. No. M-5506 of 2011 -7- consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE April 21, 2011 G.Arora