In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Cr. Misc. Nos.7159-60 & 49980-81 of 2009 and Criminal Misc. No.M-31676 of 2008 (O&M) ..... Date of decision:14.1.2010 Ved Parkash and others .....Petitioners v. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. Ajay Singla, Advocate for the complainant-respondent No.2. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Cr. M. Nos.7159-60/2009: Report (Annexure-P.6) of Medical Officer, Dhuri attached with the criminal miscellaneous applications is taken on record subject to just exceptions. The criminal miscellaneous applications stand disposed of. Cr. M. Nos.49980-81/2009: Medical reports (Annexures-P.7 to P.9) of Bhupinder Kumar, Vijay Singla and Devinder Kumar attached with the criminal miscellaneous applications are taken on record subject to just exceptions. The criminal miscellaneous applications stand disposed of. Cr. M. No.M-31676/2008 (O&M): Devinder Kumar alias Binda-complainant (respondent No.2), Bhupinder Kumar and Vijay Singla are present in Court and are identified Cr. Misc. No.M-31676/2008 (O&M) [2] by their counsel Mr. Ajay Singla, Advocate. It is stated by them that they have no objection to the quashing of the FIR (Annexure-P.1) as the matter has been compromised. It is also stated that they are making their statements of their own free will and without any kind of pressure or undue influence. Affidavits of Devinder Kumar (Annexure-P.4), Bhupinder Kumar (Annexure-P.5) and Vijay Singla (Annexure-P.3), it is stated, have also been filed by them. The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.174 dated 26.10.2008 (Annexure-P.1) for the offences under Sections 307, 148, 149, 323 and 506 Indian Penal Code (`IPC' – for short) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and all consequential proceedings in view of the compromise dated 30.10.2008 (Annexure-P.2) entered into between the petitioners and Devinder Kumar alias Binda (respondent No.2). It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that while filing charge-report (challan) by the Police the offences under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act have been dropped. Besides, it is submitted that FIR even in cases which are not compoundable can be quashed. The dispute in the present case, it is submitted is purely personal in nature. The offence under Section 307 IPC as alleged, it is submitted, is not made out in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that in view of the offence being non-compoundable and challan also for the offence under Section 307 IPC having been filed, the FIR is not liable to be quashed. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the complainant side has no objection to the quashing of the FIR and in fact Devinder Kumar alias Binda-complainant (respondent No.2), Bhupinder Cr. Misc. No.M-31676/2008 (O&M) [3] Kumar and Vijay Singla are present in Court and they have no objection to the quashing of the FIR. As the dispute is personal in nature, it is submitted that the quashing of the FIR would be for the benefit of all for maintaining peace and goodwill in the town. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the record. The FIR (Annexure-P.1) has been registered on the statement of Devinder Kumar alias Binda (respondent No.2). It is alleged by him that he is running a rice mill under the name and style of Mahesh Agro. His rice sheller is situated at Village Harchandpur. He is a committee member of the Dhuri Rice Mills Association. Their association had taken a decision that as per Government instructions all Rice Mill owners shall purchase paddy from the Mandis (market yards) only and not purchase it directly from the farmers. Due to purchase of paddy from the farmers, the Government suffers a loss of Rs.110/- per quintal. On 25.8.2008 at about 9.00 p.m., the complainant-Devinder Kumar alias Binda (respondent No.2) was present at his sheller and he received a phone call from Bhupinder Kumar, who is also a committee member of their association. Bhupinder Kumar stated that Mohan Lal Bansal, owner of rice mill was going to directly unload trollies of paddy in his rice mill. On this the complainant along with other rice mill owners including Vijay Singla, Bhupinder Kumar and Balwinder Singh alias Bittu immediately went on their scooters towards the sheller of Mohan Lal in order to stop the said theft. It was about 9.30 p.m. when they crossed the weigh bridge situated in front of the sheller of Vijay Kumar then they saw that Mohan Lal was sitting on the trolley and was coming towards his Cr. Misc. No.M-31676/2008 (O&M) [4] sheller. They stopped Mohan Lal and requested him not to violate the Government instructions and by doing this all rice millers would be defamed in the eyes of the Government and the administration. On hearing this Mohan Lal got enraged and raised a `Lalkara' to come and let them teach a lesson for taking cudgels against them. On this immediately Vinod Kumar armed with iron rod, Ved Parkash armed with revolver, Mohan Lal armed with iron rod and the son of Vinod Kumar whose name is not known, along with 8-10 persons, whose names were not known but he could identify them if they were brought in front of him, came out from the sheller of Mohan Lal which was nearby. Vinod Kumar gave a rod blow on the head of the complainant with an intention to kill him. As a result of the blow, the complainant fell on the ground. In order to save him, Vijay Singla stood on him, therefore, his life was saved. These persons also inflicted injuries with rods to Vijay Singla and Bhupinder Kumar. Thereafter, the aforesaid persons kicked and boxed the complainant while he lay on the ground. They raised noise of `Mar Ditta Mar Ditta'. Ved Parkash (petitioner) took out his pistol and threatened to fire upon the complainant. In the meanwhile other rice millers came at the spot and aforesaid persons ran away from the spot along with their respective weapons. The said persons were defaming their class by committing theft of tax for their personal gain. They tried to make them understand but they had attacked them. The matter has now been compromised and compromise dated 30.10.2008 (Annexure-P.2) has been placed on record. The said compromise is between Devinder Kumar alias Binda (respondent No.2), Vijay Singla and Bhupinder Kumar being one of the parties. The other Cr. Misc. No.M-31676/2008 (O&M) [5] party is Vinod Kumar (petitioner No.4), Mohan Lal (petitioner No.5), Sohan Lal (petitioner No.3), Ved Parkash (petitioner No.1) and Deepak Bansal (petitioner No.2). It has been agreed in terms of the said compromise (Annexure-P.2) that party No.1 i.e. the complainant will not proceed with FIR No.174 dated 26.10.2008 (Annexure-P.1) against the second party regarding the incident that had occurred on 26.10.2008 in any competent Court. It is also agreed that both the parties would live peacefully and affectionately and all disputes between them stand amicably settled with the intervention of respectables. All grudges and differences have been settled. Therefore, first party would have no objection if the FIR (Annexure-P.1) is quashed by the competent Court. Besides, the first party would also have no objection if the other party gets bail in the said FIR. Vijay Singla, Devinder Kumar alias Binda (respondent No.2) and Bhupinder Kumar have also filed affidavits (Annexures-P.3, P.4 and P.5) regarding the compromise being effected with the intervention of respectables of the city. In respect of FIR which is registered for an offence under Section 307 IPC, the FIR is not normally to be quashed as it is a serious offence. However, it is to be determined and ascertained in the facts and circumstances of the case whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is indeed made out. The offence under Section 307 IPC has been attributed primarily because Ved Parkash is stated to have taken out his pistol and threatened to fire. The injury with iron rod attributed to Vinod Kumar on the head of the complainant as per medical report (Annexure-P.9) has been observed to be a lacerated wound 4 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the (R) front parietal area and fresh bleeding 10 cm above the (R) pinna. After X-ray Cr. Misc. No.M-31676/2008 (O&M) [6] report the same has been opined to be not dangerous to life. Besides, the medical report (Annexure-P.7) of Bhupinder Kumar and report (Annexure- P.8) of Vijay Singla have mentioned the injuries on them as simple in nature. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions, has submitted that a revolver was recovered which was a licensed one. It is, however, an admitted position that the revolver was not fired. Merely, because the revolver is alleged to have been taken out that by itself cannot in the facts and circumstances be said to be such an act that the offence under Section 307 IPC can be said to be made out. The said offence would be made out if there is an intention to kill. In the facts and circumstances of the present case there is no intention on the part of Ved Parkash to commit an offence of murder or to kill anyone, besides the offences under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act have been dropped while filing the challan. In order to consider whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is made out or not, the said provision may be noticed. Section 307 IPC reads as follows:- “307. Attempt to murder :- Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempt by life convicts - When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, Cr. Misc. No.M-31676/2008 (O&M) [7] he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death." An aspect which is to be borne in mind in order to ascertain whether an offence under Section 307 IPC is made out is the intention or knowledge. Besides, intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. The first part of Section 307 IPC envisages such intention or knowledge and such circumstances that the act done by the offender would cause death and he would be guilty of murder. This would constitute an attempt of murder. The second part relates to causing of hurt by such act that is of having intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that by such an act death would be caused and the offender would be guilty of murder. This also constitutes an offence of attempt to murder. Therefore, the substance of the offence, is the intention or knowledge that the act which is done is such that death would be caused and the offender would be guilty of murder but death is not actually caused. In Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 843, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that to attract the provisions of Section 307 I.P.C., the prosecution is to establish the intention of the accused that the injury which was caused was one of the kinds referred in Section 300 I.P.C. and unless the prosecution discharges the burden, the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. cannot be brought home. A knife blow was caused in the said case on a vital region of the injured but no vital organ of the injured was cut on account of the injury. The accused was convicted by the High Court for an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the state of mind has to be deduced from the surrounding circumstances. Besides, also the existence of a motive to cause death would be a relevant consideration. Taking the totality of the Cr. Misc. No.M-31676/2008 (O&M) [8] circumstances, it was held that there was no intention of murder nor an inference could be drawn that there was an intention to cause injury which may result in death. Accordingly, it was held that the prosecution had failed to establish that the offence which was committed fell squarely under Section 307 I.P.C. and in the opinion of their Lordships, it amounted to an offence under Section 324 I.P.C. In Kundan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 62, simple injuries were received from gun shots fired from the gun by the accused. The injured were in the courtyard of their house, when the accused therein opened fire. It was held that the accused could not have intended to injure them. The conviction of the appellant in the said case for the offence under section 307 I.P.C. was held to be not justified. Therefore, merely because Ved Parkash is stated to be carrying a pistol and had threatened to fire, an inference cannot be drawn that he had the intention to commit the offence of murder which would amount to offence of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC. Besides, the parties having amicably resolved their dispute which is purely personal in nature amongst the rice millers, it would be just and expedient to quash the FIR so that there is peace and goodwill amongst the rice millers. 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 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 Cr. Misc. No.M-31676/2008 (O&M) [9] 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.” A larger Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Cr.) 1052 (5 Judges) has observed as follows: “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 donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of justice. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320 (9) of 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 behavior. 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 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 Cr. Misc. No.M-31676/2008 (O&M) [10] 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.” In view of the above, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the impugned FIR (Annexure-P.1) and all consequential and subsequent proceedings in pursuance thereof shall stand quashed. January 14, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes