IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc M- 10931 of 2010 Date of decision: 14.7.2010 Kuldeep Singh and ors …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and ors …Respondents Present: Mr SS Majithia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr VPS Sidhu, AAG Punjab. S.S.SARON, J. This order shall dispose of Criminal Misc M-10931 of 2010 and Criminal Misc M-11523 of 2010. Heard counsel for the parties. Criminal Misc M-10931 of 2010 has been filed by Kuldip Singh, Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha, Daljit Singh, Rajinder Singh @ Raj, Baldev Singh and Amanpreet Singh under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR 132 dated 16.12.2005 (P1) registered at PS Kathunangal, District Amritsar (Rural) for the offences under Sections 325, 324, 323, 506, 148/149 IPC on the basis of compromise dated 30.3.2010 (P3). The FIR (P1) in the case has been registered on the statement of Daan Singh, who has alleged that on 14.12.2005 at around 10 a.m, the complainant and his brother namely Harsukhjit Singh besides Rajwinder Singh and Navtej Singh were planting Guava trees in their fields. Then Cr Misc M-10931 of 2010 2 Kuldeep Singh (petitioner-1) tried to forcibly cross the tractor laden with electricity pole from the field where the wheat crop was sown by the complainant. They told him that the crop would be destroyed and they should not do that. In the meantime, said Kuldeep Singh (petitioner-1) after leaving the tractor went from there and came back after 10 minutes with his brothers namely Daljit Singh (petitioner-3), Baldev Singh (petitioner-5), Aman (Amanpreet Singh –petitioner-6), Bau (non-petitioner – stated to be a PO), Lakhwinder singh (petitioner-2) and Raj (Rajinder singh – petitioner-4) along with unknown persons armed with weapons to the complainant. On reaching there, Baldev Singh (petitioner-5) raised a Lalkara to catch hold of the complainant and said that a lesson be taught for not allowing them to take across the electricity poles. Thereafter, a fight ensued, in which injuries were caused by the petitioners on the person of the complainant. Daljit Singh (petitioner-3) gave a gandasi blow on the head of the complainant – Daan Singh. The complainant stepped back and the rear side of the gandasi hit him on his head. Then, the brother of the complainant namely Harsukhjit Singh came forward so save him. Thereafter, Aman (respondent-6) gave a gandasi blow to Harsukhjit Singh from the rear side of the gandasi, which hit him on his head. Then, Bau (non-petitioner – since declared a PO) gave a dang blow to Harsukhjit Singh, which hit him on his left hand finger. Lakhwinder Singh (petitioner-2) gave a dang blow to Harsukhjit Singh, which hit on his left bicep. Raj Singh (petitioner-4) gave a Kirpan blow on the person of Harsukhjit Singh. The latter raised his hand to save himself and the blow hit him on his ring finger and on the small finger. The complainant then came forward and Kuldeep Singh @ Papp (petitioner-1) gave a Datar blow, which hit him on his left leg. Baldev Cr Misc M-10931 of 2010 3 Singh (petitioner-5) gave a gandasi blow on him from the rear side of the gandasi hitting the complainant on his right hand. Then the complainant side raised a noise of ‘Maar Ditta Maar Ditta’. After that Rajwinder Singh – brother of the complainant and Jugraj Singh came forward to save him and the accused persons went away from the spot along with their respective weapons and after raising Lalkaras and giving injuries to them. Now the matter is stated to have been compromised in terms of the compromise (P3). The complainant side has filed Criminal Misc M-11523 of 2010 seeking quashing of the cross-version (P2) which is recorded on the statement of Kuldeep Singh. The quashing of the cross-version is also sought on the basis of the said compromise (P3). In the cross-version (P.2) it has been alleged by the complainant Kuldeep Singh that they wanted to take 24 hours single phase electricity supply connection. The Electricity Board was erecting the poles for the same. On 11.12.2005 at about 10.30 a.m., Rajinder Pal Singh on the asking of the AEE was carrying the poles on the back of his tractor. When he reached near the boundary of Daan Singh, then Harsukhjit Singh alias Maltu hit his tractor on the front side of the tractor of the complainant Kuldeep Singh. He then got down from the tractor after stopping it. Harsukhjit Singh stopped his tractor and took out his Kirpan from his tractor and attacked Kuldeep Singh-complainant which hit him on his right arm above the wrist. Then Rajwinder Singh raised a `Lalkara' and said that the complainant be caught hold of and he be given a taste for parking their tractor in their wheat crop. Then Daan Singh gave a Datar blow which hit Kuldeep Singh-complainant on his right palm. Then Shera Singh told his brother-in-law, namely, T.T. as to what was he looking Cr Misc M-10931 of 2010 4 for and he should hurl dang blow. Then T.T. gave four dang blows which hit the complainant-Kuldeep Singh on his back. He raised an alarm of `Mar ditta, mar ditta' then Rajwant Singh and Nahar Singh, who were coming from behind saved the complainant-Kuldeep Singh from the above said persons. The accused then ran away from the spot along with their respective weapons and tractors. The incident had been witnessed by Rajwant Singh and Nahar Singh. After arranging a vehicle and after getting docket from the Police Station they got Kuldeep Singh admitted in Government Hospital where his treatment was carried out after necessary documentation. Now the matter has been compromised between both the parties and the respective petitioners in the two petitions pray that the FIR (P.1) and the cross-version (P.2) be quashed. Affidavits of Daan Singh and Harsukhjit Singh filed in Court today, are taken on record. In the trial of the case, the prosecution, out of 12 witnesses, has examined 10 and only 2 witnesses remain to be examined. One of the circumstances, which weigh with the Courts while quashing the FIR is that time of the trial Court would be saved and the time so saved can be utilized in deciding other pending litigation. However, in the present case, the trial of the case is near its fag end. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, it would be inexpedient to quash the proceedings at this stage. The fact of the compromise is though admitted by both the parties. In the circumstances, the proper course to follow would be that in case the trial Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioners in Criminal Misc M-10931 of 2010 or the petitioners in Criminal Misc-M 11523 of 2010 are guilty of the offences attributed to them, the fact that they have compromised the matter, would be taken into consideration for the Cr Misc M-10931 of 2010 5 purposes of sentence only. The learned trial Court shall, however, make every effort to conclude the trial of the case as expeditiously as possible. Both these petitions stand disposed of. 14.7.2010 ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge