In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.34472 of 2010 and Criminal Misc. No.M-9441 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:16.7.2010 Gurmukh Singh and others .....Petitioners v. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents .... Present: Mrs. Ritu Punj, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for respondent-State. Mr. Tribhuwan Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2 with respondent No.2 and Ravinder Singh alias Ravi in person. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Cr. M. No.34472 of 2010: The affidavits of Davinder Singh alias Kaka (respondent No.2) and Ravinder Singh alias Ravi attached with the criminal miscellaneous are taken on record. The criminal miscellaneous stands disposed of. Cr. M. No.M -9441 of 2010 : The petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.88 dated 16.9.2005 (Annexure-P.1) registered at Police Station Sudhar, Police District Jagraon for the offences under Sections 326, 324, 323, 341 and 34 Indian Penal Code on the basis of compromise dated 26.3.2010 (Annexure-P.2). The FIR in the case has been registered on the basis of Cr. Misc. No.34472 of 2010 and Cr. Misc. No.M-9441 of 2010 [2] statement of Davinder Singh alias Kaka (respondent No.2). It is alleged that he was employed as Conductor at Khalsa Mini Bus No.PB-04-1063. Manjit Singh alias Jogi is the driver of the said bus and Ravinder Singh alias Ravi is employed as helper. The bus plies from Abuwal to Ludhiana via Jodhan. On 15.9.2005 when the bus of the complainant reached the Bus Stand Jodhan from Abuwal at about 11.46 a.m. then Gurmukh Singh (petitioner No.1) armed with Kirch, Jassi alias Jaswant Singh (petitioner No.4) armed with Dah, Deepa alias Tejinder Singh (petitioner No.3) armed with a handle of a shovel (Kahi) and Anwar Ali (petitioner No.2) armed with iron rod were present in the mini bus No.PB-13N-4001 which was parked at the Bus Stand Jodhan. They got down from the bus with their respective weapons and caused injuries to the complainant. Jassi (petitioner No.4) gave a Dah blow towards the complainant on his head. In order to save himself he raised his left arm and the blow hit the complainant on the elbow of his left arm. The helper of the bus of the complainant, namely, Ravinder Singh alias Ravi came forward to rescue him and Gurmukh Singh (petitioner No.1) gave a Kirch blow which hit him on his chest. Anwar Ali (petitioner No.2) gave rod blows due to which the complainant sustained injuries on his right shoulder, right bicep, face, fingers of left hand, stomach and on the calf of his right leg. Then Deepa (petitioner No.3) started giving blows from the handle of his shovel (Kahi) which hit the complainant on his left ear, left shoulder and back. The complainant raised an alarm of `Marta – Marta', then their driver Manjit Singh with the help of other passengers rescued the complainant and Ravinder Singh alias Ravi. All the accused persons with their respective weapons ran away. The cause of conflict was Cr. Misc. No.34472 of 2010 and Cr. Misc. No.M-9441 of 2010 [3] that the turn of the departure of the Malwa Mini Bus from Bus Stand Jodhan was 11.34 a.m. and the time of the bus of the complainant was 11.46 a.m. The accused regularly used the bus timings of the complainant which were objected to. The dispute between the parties has now been mutually settled by way of compromise (Annexure-P.2) which has been signed by Davinder Singh alias Kaka (respondent No.2) and also by helper of the bus, namely, Ravinder Singh alias Ravi. The reply which has been filed is taken on record. The complainant-respondent No.2 and Ravinder Singh injured have filed affidavits in Court which have also been taken on record. It is stated by both the injured that they have no objection to the FIR being quashed. Davinder Singh (respondent No.2) and Ravinder Singh alias Ravi, the injured are present in Court and are identified by their counsel. They both stated that they have no objection to the FIR being quashed as they have compromised the matter. It is stated that they have compromised the matter of their own free will and without any kind of pressure or undue influence of anyone. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the dispute was in relation to the timings of the bus which is personal in nature and since the parties are in the same business the State would have no serious objection to the quashing of the FIR. In the facts and circumstances, it may be noticed that the dispute has occurred between two rival transport companies in their business dealings. In order to maintain peace and amity in their working, it would be just and expedient to terminate the proceedings for which the Cr. Misc. No.34472 of 2010 and Cr. Misc. No.M-9441 of 2010 [4] complainant Davinder Singh alias Kaka (respondent No.2) and the helper of the Khalsa Mini Bus Ravinder Singh alias Ravi have no objection. Besides, the State has no serious objection. In Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582, it was observed by the Supreme Court as follows: “We need to emphasize 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 utilized 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 Cr. Misc. No.34472 of 2010 and Cr. Misc. No.M-9441 of 2010 [5] 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.” In view of the above, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No.88 dated 16.9.2005 (Annexure-P.1) and all consequential and subsequent proceedings in pursuance thereof shall stand quashed. July 16, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*