IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-25001 of 2010 Date of decision : 28.9.2010 Mukhtiar Singh and others …. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ….. Respondents Present : Mr. S.S. Majithia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. VPS Sidhu, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Puneet Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2 with Gurpreet Singh (respondent No.2/complainant) in person. *** S.S. SARON, J. The prayer of the petitioners is for quashing the cross-version registered in FIR No.94 dated 20.6.2003 at Police Station Majitha, Police District Amritsar (Rural) for the offences under Sections 326, 323, 324/34 IPC and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. The cross-version (Annexure P2) has been recorded on the statement of Gurpreet Singh (respondent No.2/complainant). It has been alleged by respondent No.2, Gurpreet Singh that his father has two brothers namely Mukhtiar Singh (petitioner No.1) and Hardeep Singh (petitioner No.3). They had purchased land from Kartar Singh resident of Majitha. Their land was in the centre and he was cultivating his land with the tractor. The incident had occurred on 18.6.2003 at about 10.30 a.m. Mukhtiar Singh (petitioner No.1), Kuldeep Singh (petitioner No.2) son Crl. Misc. No. M-25001 of 2010 [2] of Mukhtiar Singh armed with ‘datar’ came there along with Hardeep Singh (petitioner No.3) who was empty handed. Hardeep Singh (petitioner No.3) who is the complainant’s father’s elder brother (Taya) came there and he raised a ‘lalkara’ that give him (Gurpreet Singh- respondent No.2/complainant) a taste for removing the grass from the boundaries. Gurpreet Singh (respondent No.2/complainant) politely told them that the grass got removed away from the boundaries while the tractor was ploughing and they would put mud along the boundary (vatt). In the meantime, Kuldeep Singh (petitioner No.2) gave a ‘datar’ blow on the complainant which hit him on his left arm when he raised his arm to ward off the blow. Then Mukhtiar Singh (petitioner No.1) who is the complainant’s father’s elder brother (Taya) gave a blow on the complainant which hit him on his left hand near the elbow. The complainant/ respondent No.2 raised an alarm of “na maro na maro”. Then his (complainant’s) father’s elder brother (Taya) namely Hardeep Singh (petitioner No.3) hurled a brick on the complainant which hit him on his forehead on the upper part of the eye. Because of the alarm that was raised, the accused ran away from the spot. The reason behind the dispute was that Mukhtiar Singh (petitioner No.1) had forcibly made a way in their land and the complainant had made a complaint in this regard. Because of the said reason, they (petitioners) were annoyed and caused injuries to the complainant/respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 Gurpreet Singh (complainant) has deposed an affidavit (Annexure P3) in which he has Crl. Misc. No. M-25001 of 2010 [3] stated that with the intervention of respectables and Panchayat of the village the dispute has been settled and he does not want to pursue the case in future. Gurpreet Singh (respondent No.2) is present in Court and is identified by his counsel Sh. Puneet Singla, Advocate. It is stated by him that he has compromised the matter with the petitioners without any kind of pressure or unude influence of anyone and he has no objection to the quashing of the FIR. Learned State counsel has submitted that in case the parties have indeed amicably settled their dispute, the State would have no serious objection to the quashing of the FIR. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter and gone through the records of the case. Learned counsel appearing for the parties have been heard. It may be noticed that FIR No.94 dated 20.6.2003 was registered against the complainant on the statement of Mukhtiar Singh (petitioner No.1). In the said FIR Gurpreet Singh (respondent No.2) is an accused and it is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that he (complainant) has been acquitted in the said case on the basis of compromise. The offences in the said case were compoundable and were compounded. The present petition has been filed as the offence under Section 326 IPC is not compoundable. Gurpreet Singh (respondent No.2/complainant) has, however, stated that he has no objection to the quashing of FIR as the matter has been compromised. Crl. Misc. No. M-25001 of 2010 [4] The dispute in the present case is personal in nature and is amongst the members of the family inasmuch as petitioners No.1 and 3 are the father’s elber brothers (Tayas) of the complainant and Kuldeep Singh (petitioner No.2) is the son of Mukhtiar Singh (petitioner No.1) and therefore a first cousin of the complainant Gurpreet Singh. Therefore, the dispute is in the same family and is personal in nature, which has indeed been amicably settled inasmuch as the FIR case against Gurpreet Singh (respondent No.2) has been compounded and Gurpreet Singh who is the complainant in the cross-case has stated that he has no objection to the quashing of the cross-case.. 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 by 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 the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and Crl. Misc. No. M-25001 of 2010 [5] meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law. Besides, a five Judges Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 has observed as follows:- “ 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 CrPC, or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the CrPC. 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 CrPC is sued to enhance such a compromise which, Crl. Misc. No. M-25001 of 2010 [6] 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 CrPC 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 view of the above, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and the cross-version registered in FIR No.94 dated 20.6.2003 at Police Station Majitha, Police District Amritsar (Rural) for the offences under Sections 326, 323, 324/34 IPC on the statement of the complainant Gurpreet Singh (respondent No.2) and all subsequent and consequential proceedings arising therefrom shall stand quashed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE September 28, 2010 amit