CRM M 31483 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- Date of decision: 09.02.2011 1. CRM M 31483 of 2010 Bhartho and others ........ Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondent(s) 2. CRM M 31713 of 2010 Ramesh Kumar and others ........Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Arun Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners (In CRM M 31483 of 2010) Mr. S K Verma, Advocate for the petitioners (CRM M 31713 of 2010) Mr. Sidrath Sarup, DAG, Haryana for the respondent - State Mr. S K Verma, Advocate for respondent No. 2 (CRM M 31483) Mr. Arun Yadav, Advocate for respondent No. 2 (CRM M 31713 of 2010) -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? CRM M 31483 of 2010 2 Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) Both these petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the same arise out of FIR No. 66 dated 21.04.2010 under Sections 323/452/382/427/506/148/149 IPC Police Station Pillu Khera, District Jind. Vide CRM M 31483 of 2010, the petitioners sought for quashing of the aforesaid FIR on the basis of compromise having arrived at between the parties. Whereas, CRM M 31713 of 2010 is a cross version case registered under Sections 323/324/307/34 IPC and Section 27, 54, 59 of Arms Act in the said FIR. Vide order dated 29.10.2010 passed in CRM M 31483 of 2010, the trial Court was directed to send a report with regard to the validity or otherwise of the Panchayati Rajinama( P3) after recording the statements of all the concerned parties before the next date of hearing. In pursuance to the same, the Additional Civil Judge, Safidon vide letter dated 19.11.2010, has submitted its report stating therein that from the joint statement, it is clear that the Panchayati compromise dated 01.09.2010 has been arrived at between the parties. Since, the complainant as well as injured have decided to withdraw from the prosecution, the continuation of criminal proceedings would be nothing but a sheer misuse of process of law. It is a fit case, where this Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the said FIR as well as the cross version case. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another-2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has observed as under:- CRM M 31483 of 2010 3 “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 amity and reduced 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 exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.” The Apex Court in the case of 'Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:- “6. We need to emphasize 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.” In the aforesaid FIR, on the statement of Bhartho Devi, a cross case for offence under Section 323/324/307/34 IPC and Sections 27/54/59 of the Arms Act has been registered against Ramesh Kumar, Phool Singh, Shubhash and Joginder Singh who are petitioners in CRM M 31713 of CRM M 31483 of 2010 4 2010. The parties are from one clan and are living in the same vicinity. A dispute arose between them on account of opening of a gate of the Balmiki Choupal and in that incident both the parties received injuries. Now, the parties have arrived at a compromise and decided not to pursue the litigation against each other. No doubt, the case registered is under Section 307 IPC. However, it is a case of cross version. It is not sure, who is the aggressor. Moreover, both parties are from the same ancestral clan. They reside in same village. They are closely related. The quashing of FIR and cross case will help to sink their differences and avoid resulting in future enmity between them. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of B S Joshi and others v. State of Haryana & anr. reported as 2003 (2) RCR (Criminal)888, in para 6 and 11, held as under:- “6. In Pepsi Food Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. [(1998) 5 SCC 749], this Court with reference to Bhajan Lal's case observed that the guidelines laid therein as to where the court will exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code could not be inflexible or laying rigid formulae to be followed by the courts. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is well settled that these powers have no limits. Of course, where there is more power, it becomes necessary to exercise utmost care and caution while invoking such powers. 11. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. v. CRM M 31483 of 2010 5 Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. [(1988) 1 SCC 692], it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings. Thus, taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the matter has been compromised and the parties are from one clan, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C and accept the compromise for quashing of the present FIR as well as the cross version and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the above settled proposition of law. The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainant as well as the injured have no objection if the said FIR is quashed. Taking into account that it is a case of cross version as well as as the compromise dated 01.09.2010 and report of the trial Court, verifying the genuineness of the said compromise, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR as well as the cross case arising out of the same and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the above said settled proposition of law. CRM M 31483 of 2010 6 Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 66 dated 21.04.2010 under Sections 323/452/382/427/506/148/149 IPC Police Station Pillu Khera, District Jind as well as cross version case under Sections 323/324/307/34 IPC and Section 27, 54, 59 of Arms Act and the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Both the petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 09.02.2011 mohan