IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-18572 of 2010 Date of decision : 19.8.2010 Bablu Singh and Others …. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another …. Respondents Present: Mr. R.K. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. VPS Sidhu, AAG, Punjab. Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the complainant/respondent No.2 with respondent No.2 Harnarain Singh in person. **** S.S. SARON, J. Reply by way of affidavit of Harnarain Singh, complainant/respondent No.2 has been filed in Court today which is taken on record. The petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) seeking quashing of the FIR No. 66 dated 29.3.2006 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Hariana, District Hoshiarpur for the offences under Sections 452, 323, 324, 325, 148/149 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short) and all subsequent proceedings arising in pursuance thereof. The FIR has been registered on the statement of Harnarian Singh (respondent No.2). It is alleged that he is resident of village Gajrala, Police Station Hariana, District Hoshiarpur. On Crl. Misc. No. M-18572 of 2010 [2] 28.3.2006, they were sitting in the residential house of Sarabjit Singh, Samiti Member for some personal work. It was about 9.00 p.m., then Sanjiv (petitioner No.2) armed with dang, Sandip Kumar (petitioner No.3) armed with ‘sota’, Mukesh Kumar (petitioner No.4) armed with ‘danda’, Bablu (petitioner No.1) empty handed, Sattu @ Satpal (petitioner No.5) armed with ‘dang’ all residents of village Janauri, District Hoshiarpur came to the house of Sarabjit Singh, Samiti Member. They pushed the door and entered the house. Out of the said accused, Bablu (petitioner No.1) raised a lalkara to catch hold of the complainant Harnarain Singh (respondent No.2) for putting obstacles in their work and teach him a lesson. On saying this Sanjiv (petitioner No.2) gave a dang blow on the person of the complainant which hit him above his right eye on the forehead. Sandip Kumar (petitioner No.3) gave a ‘sota’ blow on the complainant, which hit him on the left side of his waist. Then Mukesh (petitioner No.4) gave a ‘danda’ blow which hit him on the left side of his neck. Sattu (petitioner No.5) gave a ‘dang’ blow on the complainant which hit him on his back and due to injuries sustained by the accused, the complainant fell down on the ground. While the complainant lay on the ground then Sarabjit Singh and Swatantar Singh raised a noise and saved him from the petitioners. The petitioners also manhandled Sarabjit Singh and Swatantar Singh. The reason for the dispute was that the complainant being member of the Panchayat had got compromised all the quarrels through the office of Panchayat. Therefore, they did not feel good about the same. The petitioner was admitted at Civil Hospital, Hariana by his brother namely Har Krishan Singh. Crl. Misc. No. M-18572 of 2010 [3] The incident had occurred on 29.3.2006 on which date the FIR was also recorded. The petitioners are co-villagers of village Januari, District Hoshiarpur. Now, they have settled their dispute. The police has filed a charge report (challan) in the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions has submitted that the charge in the case has not been framed. Respondent No.2 is present in Court and is identified by his Counsel Sh. K.S. Dadwal. He has stated that he has entered into a compromise without any kind of pressure or undue influence from anyone; besides, he would have no objection in case the FIR is quashed. Respondent No.2 has also filed a short affidavit dated 29.7.2010 in this regard in Court today, which has been taken on record. In terms of said affidavit that has been filed, it is stated that since the petitioners and respondent No.2 (complainant) belong to the same village, therefore, with the intervention of the respectables of the locality, the matter has been compromised on 15.6.2010. Therefore, in order to maintain peace and amity in the village, it would be just and expedient that the FIR is quashed. 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 by 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-18572 of 2010 [4] prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law. Besides, a five Judges Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 has observed as follows:- “ 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 CrPC, or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the CrPC. The Compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and Crl. Misc. No. M-18572 of 2010 [5] orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the CrPC is sued 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 CrPC 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”. Learned State counsel on instruction has submitted that the State would have no serious objection to the quashing of the FIR if it is for the sake of peace and amity in the village although some of the offences are non-compoundable. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, FIR No. 66 dated 29.3.2006 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Hariana, District Hoshiarpur for the offences under Sections 452, Crl. Misc. No. M-18572 of 2010 [6] 323, 324, 325, 148/149 Indian Penal Code and all subsequent and consequential proceedings arising therefrom shall stand quashed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE August 19, 2010 amit