Crl. Misc. No. M-6529 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-6529 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 03.06.2011 Raj Kumar and others ......Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate for the petitioners. Sh. Kshitij Sharma, A.A.G., Haryana for respondent No. 1-State Mr. P.P. Chahar, ,Advocate for respondent No. 2 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 81 dated 06.04.2007 under Sections 148/149/307/506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the Code') and under Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station, Sadar Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). Crl. Misc. No. M-6529 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Brief facts of the case are that the above FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2. As per FIR, on 06.04.2007, complainant along with his brother Vijay Pal, Rishi Pal and uncle's son Rajbir were harvesting the crops in the Baniyawala fields situated near their village. At about 7.15 A.M in the morning Rajbir son of Raj Kumar was going near their fields and after coming to the complainant said that 'Bhain Chodo Bihari Wala Kam Karne Lage' upon which a dispute took placed between Rajbir and complainant party. Thereafter, Rajbir returned to his house. After 15 minutes Rajbir, Narender @ Nanha, Raj Kumar, Ram Chander @ Ballu and Narender came to their fields after connived with each other. Narender @ Nanhaand Rajbir were having pistols. Ramchander @ Ballu gave a slap on mouth after catching the complainant. When the complainant tried to save himself then Narender gave bullet injury to him which hit on his right side. Rajbir also gave a bullet injury which hit on his left hand elbow. Narender @ Nanha gave another bullet injury which also hit on his left elbow. When the brothers of the complainant tried to save the complainant then Narender caught hold of them and gave fist blows to them also. After hearing the noise of the complainant, people who were harvesting the crop came there and after seeing the persons, accused party ran away from the spot along with their respective weapons and Crl. Misc. No. M-6529 of 2009 (O&M) -3- while going, the accused party threatened to kill the complainant party. The motive behind this occurrence was that in the year 2005, Ranbir and Raj Kumar murdered father of the complainant in which they have been arrested and they come on bail to kill the complainant. In the above background, FIR was registered against the petitioners. After presentation of challan and framing of charges, now the matter is fixed for recording of evidence for 10.06.2011. However, during the pendency, the parties have compromised the matter due to the intervention of respectable peoples of village who had convened a meeting of “Gohand”. As per compromise, they all belong to one and the same family. They have compromised the matter to maintain peace and harmony and for the betterment for both the parties. It has further been stated in the compromise that previously there was another case bearing FIR No. 290 dated 11.09.2005 under Section 148/149/302 and 25/54/59 of arms Act. Out of the eight accused Raj Kumar was also one of them, who is also an accused in the present case and the said case was also compromised in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jhajjar on 09.04.2008. The compromise in the present case is without any undue influence, coercion or without any pressure. Both the parties are residing in the same locality in the neighbourhood. Compromise deed is Annexure P-2. Crl. Misc. No. M-6529 of 2009 (O&M) -4- In compliance of the order dated 21.04.2011, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court ON 02.05.2011 for recording of their statements. Report has not been received. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has given certified copy of the joint statement given by the parties before the trial Court and the same is taken on record as Annexure A-1. As per their joint statement, they have compromised the matter with each other. They are now living peacefully and have no grudge against each other and do not want to pursue further with the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also tendered the affidavit of the complainant who is present in Court and has been duly identified by his Counsel. The affidavit is taken on record as Annexuere A-2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also tendered the affidavit of Rajbir (uncle's son of the complainant). The affidavit is taken on record as Annexuere A-3. However, offence under Section 307 IPC is not compoundable but keeping in view the peculiar facts of the present case that since the parties belong to the same village and they are neighbourers, it would an exercise in futile to continue with the further proceedings against the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners has also placed on record the MLR report of the complainant. In view Crl. Misc. No. M-6529 of 2009 (O&M) -5- of the statement made by the parties that the compromise has been effected between the parties and since the injuries are simple in nature, the offence under Section 307 IPC is hereby compounded. Broad guidelines have been laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-6529 of 2009 (O&M) -6- 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) 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-6529 of 2009 (O&M) -7- litigation.” 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 status report, compromise effected between the parties and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases 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. 81 dated 06.04.2007 under Crl. Misc. No. M-6529 of 2009 (O&M) -8- Sections 148/149/307/506 of the Code and under Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station, Sadar Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar(Annexure P-1), is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE June 03, 2011 G.Arora