Crl. Misc. No.M-303 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-303 of 2010 Date of Decision: 19.05.2010 Dinesh Kumar and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab etc. ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No.14 dated 20.01.1999 under Sections 326/324/34 IPC at Police Station Tanda, District Hoshiarpur, as well as, the Judgment/Order dated 22.09.2006 passed by the JMIC, Dasuya or in the alternative directions to the lower Appellate Court, Hoshiarpur to allow the parties to compound the above said offences in view of the compromise in Crl. Appeal No.12/2006 titled as Dinesh Kumar vs. State of Punjab. The respondent No.3-Gopal Krishan got registered the above said FIR against the petitioners on the allegations that the petitioners gave Crl. Misc. No.M-303 of 2010 2 injuries to the complainant/respondent No.2 with kirpan. The cause of quarrel is the enmity of the students in the college. Thereafter, the charges were framed against the petitioners. After framing of the charge, the trial of the case was proceeded and the JMIC, Dasuya vide his judgment dated 22.09.2006 convicted Dinesh Kumar under Section 326 IPC for two years along with a fine of Rs.2000/- and under Sections 324/34 IPC for one year along with fine of Rs.1000/-, Neeraj Kumar under Section 324 IPC for one year along with a fine of Rs.1000/- and under Sections 326/34 IPC for two years along with fine of Rs.2000/-, Nandan Kumar under Sections 326/34 IPC for two years along with fine of Rs.2000/- and under Sections 324/34 IPC for one year along with fine of Rs.1000/-. All the sentences were to run concurrently. Thereafter, the petitioners filed appeal against the judgment dated 22.09.2006 and the said appeal is still pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. After their conviction, a compromise dated 30.09.2009 (Annexure P-3) has been effected between the parties. In the compromise dated 30.09.2009, it is stated by the complainant-respondent No.2 that now the matter has been compromised with the intervention of the respectables and no party has any grudge against the other party and he has no objection, if the petitioners are acquitted in the above said case. The respondent No.3 has also executed an affidavit admitting the factum of compromise entered into between the parties. Copies of compromise as well as affidavit have been placed on record. A separate statement of the complainant-Gopal Krishan has also been recorded. As per the statement and affidavit of Gopal Krishan, he has no objection, if the said FIR qua the present petitioners is quashed and the order of conviction is set aside and the petitioners are acquitted. He has further stated that he has entered into Crl. Misc. No.M-303 of 2010 3 compromise with the petitioners without any pressure and out of his own sweet will. The separate statement of injured Kumar Vikram, has also been recorded in the Court to the same effect. He too has no objection, if the petitioners are acquitted. The Apex Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 910 while quashing the FIR and all proceedings arising out of the same held that the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. In that case also the petitioners were convicted under Section 498-A IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment of 18 months. An appeal was filed against the conviction order and during the pendency of the appeal, the parties had settled their differences. However, they filed petition before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint as well as conviction order on account of the compromise. The High Court dismissed the same. Aggrieved, they challenged the same before the Apex Court. The Apex Court accepted the compromise and quashed the FIR and all proceedings arising out of the same, as well as, order of conviction. This Court in the case of Sukhwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 991 while relying upon the judgment of Khursheed and another vs. State of U.P. and another 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 495 allowed the petitioners to compound the offence under Section 452 IPC during the pendency of the appeal. In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(4) S.C. Cases 582, the Apex Court emphasised and advised as under :- “ 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 Crl. Misc. No.M-303 of 2010 4 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 view of the settled proposition of law and in view of the fact that the parties have compromised the matter with the intervention of the respectables of the village, it would be in the interest of justice to accept the compromise and to allow the parties to live amicably which shall reduce the friction in the society and promote peace and harmony. In view of the settled proposition of law, the parties are allowed to compound the offences. Accordingly, the parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Court where the appeal is pending. Thereafter, the Appellate Court shall pass appropriate orders in the light of permission having granted by this Court to the parties to compound the offence. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 19.05.2010 JUDGE gurpreet