In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-15181 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:17.9.2010 Ranjit Bajaj and others .....Petitioners v. State of Haryana and another .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Anurag Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.C. Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent-State. Mr. Deepinder Brar, Advocate for the complainant- respondent No.2. ...... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR dated 30.1.2010 (Annexure-P.1) registered at Police Station Chandimandir, District Panchkula for the offences under Sections 323, 307, 506, 295-A read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short). The FIR has been registered on the statement of Gurmohan Singh Bedi (respondent No.2). It is alleged that he is a student of third year of the University Institute of Legal Studies in the Panjab University. On the date of the incident i.e. 30.1.2010 he along with his friend Amarbir Singh Salar had gone to Hotel North Park at 9.30 p.m. to attend the party organized by SJOBA (St. John Old Boys Association) for Winter Ball. At Cr. Misc. No.M-15181 of 2010 [2] about 1.30 p.m. (sic. - a.m.) after the party was over, he was standing outside the gate of the hotel. At that time a car No.CHI-1 make IKON with three young boys drove over the foot of the complainant. The complainant said that brother be careful while driving. After that one gunman, whose name the complainant later came to know was Mahender Singh (petitioner No.2), came to him and hit his lip with the butt of his pistol. As a result of which the complainant suffered an injury on the left lower lip. Thereafter, Ranjit Bajaj (petitioner No.1) and the second gunman (petitioner No.3), whose name the complainant did not know but could recognize if he sees him came to him. Ranjit Bajaj (petitioner No.1) took the pistol of Mahender Singh (petitioner No.2) and the second gunman (petitioner No.3) also took out his pistol. They put their respective pistols on the head and chest of the complainant with an intention to kill him. They removed the turban of Amarbir Singh Salar and caught his beard. After this a lot of people gathered and the complainant ran inside the hotel to save himself. The accused also left while holding out threats. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the matter has been compromised with the complainant-Gurmohan Singh Bedi. It is submitted that the case relates to a minor dispute between students at a party of old students association and in any case it is not a case from which it can be said that there was any intention on the part of the petitioners to commit the murder of the complainant so as to make out a case for the offence under Section 307 IPC. Reply by way of affidavit of Ms. Iqbal Kaur, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, City, Panchkula has been filed. It is stated that Cr. Misc. No.M-15181 of 2010 [3] the FIR was registered on the complaint of Gurmohan Singh Bedi. The petitioner No.1 was arrested on 3.3.2010, Malkhan Singh (petitioner No.3) was arrested on 8.3.2010 and Mahender Singh (petitioner No.2) was arrested on 12.3.2010. During investigation the licensed revolver was recovered from Malkhan Singh (petitioner No.3), which was used at the time of occurrence. After completion of investigation the challan has been submitted before the Illaqa Magistrate on 17.5.2010 and the case is fixed for framing of charges. The charges in the case have not been framed till date. Mr. Deepinder Brar, Advocate appearing for the complainant- respondent No.2 and for Amarbir Singh Salar has submitted that the complainant and the injured Amarbir Singh Salar have deposed affidavits to the effect that the matter has been compromised. The complainant- Gurmohan Singh Bedi in his affidavit dated 4.8.2010 has submitted that the petitioners have apologized before him and the matter has been settled with the intervention of elders and he does not wish to pursue the matter. Similar affidavit dated 14.9.2010 has been filed by Amarbir Singh Salar. The compromise dated 12.5.2010 (Annexure-P.2) is on record in which both the parties have stated that they have arrived at an amicable settlement with the intervention of elders and the complainant does not wish to pursue the matter. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that in the facts and circumstances the State would have no serious objection to the quashing of the FIR in view of the dispute amongst the students being amicably resolved. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that a skirmish had occurred on the intervening night of Cr. Misc. No.M-15181 of 2010 [4] 29/30.1.2010. The complainant Gurmohan Singh Bedi and his friend Amarbir Singh Salar had gone to Hotel North Park at 9.30 p.m. to attend the Winter Ball party being organized by SJOBA (St. John Old Boys Association). After the party was over at about 1.30 a.m., the petitioner No.1 drove his car over the foot of the complainant. The complainant stated that brother be careful while driving. After that one gunman, whose name the complainant later came to know was Mahender Singh (petitioner No.2), came to him and hit his lip with the butt of his pistol. The complainant suffered an injury on the left lower lip. In the meantime, the second gunman (petitioner No.3), whom the complainant could not recognize came to the complainant. The petitioner No.1 took the pistol of Mahender Singh and the second gunman also took out his pistol and both put their respective pistols on the head and chest of the complainant with an intention to kill him. Besides, they removed the turban of Amarbir Singh Salar and caught his beard. A supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded on 30.1.2010. It is stated by the complainant that the previous night after the party was over at North Park at about 1.30 a.m. when he along with his friend Amarbir Singh and Puneet Chadha were coming out of the venue and going home then petitioner No.1 and his gunmen (petitioners No.2 and 3) had beaten him. Besides, petitioner No.1 had put his pistol on his ear lobe and pressed the trigger but it misfired. The complainant in order to save his life ran inside the hotel. When he made his earlier statement he was under fear and he forgot to narrate this aspect. It may be noticed that it is on account of the supplementary statement of the complainant that the offence under Section 307 IPC had been added. The matter in any case has now been compromised and it is a Cr. Misc. No.M-15181 of 2010 [5] case of skirmish on account of a trivial incident, which occurred at the spur of moment and without any pre-meditation. In the initial statement made by the complainant, it was not mentioned that the pistol was put on the ear lobe of the complainant and the trigger was pressed but the pistol misfired. This aspect has been stated in the supplementary statement. In respect of a case which is registered for the offence under Section 307 IPC, the FIR is not normally to be quashed on the basis of compromise as it is a serious offence. However, it is to be determined and ascertained in the facts and circumstances of each case whether the said offence on the basis of material on record indeed is made out. The offence under Section 307 IPC has been attributed primarily because petitioner No.1 had put his pistol on the ear lobe of the complainant and pressed the trigger but it misfired. It is, however, an admitted case that no injury has been attributed to anyone and the pistol did not actually fire. Therefore, in case, the petitioner No.1 is said to have put his pistol on the ear lobe of the complainant and is said to have pressed the trigger, it would be required to be ascertained from the attending facts and circumstances whether there was indeed an intention on his part to commit the murder of the complainant. In order to consider whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is made out or not, the provisions of Section 307 IPC may be noticed, which 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 Cr. Misc. No.M-15181 of 2010 [6] 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, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death." In order to ascertain whether an offence under Section 307 IPC is made out or not, the important aspect that is to be determined is the intention or knowledge. If the intention or knowledge of the accused is to commit the murder and murder is not actually committed, the offence would be made out. Section 307 IPC is in two parts. The first part 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. The second part relates to causing of hurt by such act that was of having an intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that by such an act death would be caused and the offender is 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. Besides, another important aspect is to be kept in view is the existence of motive to cause death which is a relevant consideration. Taking the totality of the facts and circumstances into consideration, it is to be judged whether there was an intention to commit murder or an inference could be drawn that there was an intention to cause injury which may result in death. In Kundan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 62, the victim therein had received simple injuries from gun shots fired from the Cr. Misc. No.M-15181 of 2010 [7] 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 and the conviction of the appellant in the said case for the offence under section 307 I.P.C. was held to be not made out. 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. The Supreme Court held 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 circumstances into consideration, it was held that there was no intention to commit 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 make out and establish the offence under Section 307 IPC. As has already been noticed in the present case a skirmish occurred at an old school boys get-together at the spur of the moment and without any pre-meditation. The act of putting the pistol on the ear lobe of the complainant and pressing the trigger, which admittedly did not fire would by itself not make out an offence under Section 307 IPC as no intention is shown on the part of the petitioners to commit the murder of the Cr. Misc. No.M-15181 of 2010 [8] complainant. There was indeed no enmity between the parties to the skirmish and there was no motive for the petitioners to commit the murder of the complainant or make an attempt to murder the complainant. Therefore, it can be said that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner No.1 to commit the murder of the complainant. This is more so for the reason that the dispute in any case has been amicably settled, which even otherwise is personal in nature between the students. The complainant and Amarbir Singh Salar have stated that the petitioners have apologized. Therefore, in order to maintain personal relations, friendship and goodwill amongst the students and to avoid bitterness and rancour between them, it would be just and expedient that the proceedings are terminated by quashing the FIR. 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 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.” Besides, 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 Cr. Misc. No.M-15181 of 2010 [9] 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 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.” Cr. Misc. No.M-15181 of 2010 [10] In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No.24 dated 30.1.2010 (Annexure-P.1) registered at Police Station Chandimandir, District Panchkula for the offences under Sections 323, 307, 506, 295-A read with Section 34 IPC and all consequential and subsequent proceedings in pursuance thereof shall stand quashed. September 17, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*