IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDGIARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 64 of 2009 Date of decision: March 25, 2009 Rama Devi and Others …. Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another …. Respondents Present: Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ajay Singh Ghangas, DAG, Haryana. Mr. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** S.S. SARON, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) seeking quashing of FIR No. 384 dated 12.11.2008 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Samalakha Distt. Panipat for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 326 506 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code (“IPC”- for short) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise that has been entered into between the parties. The FIR (Annexure P1) has been registered on the statement of Subash (respondent No.2). It has been alleged by the complainant that on 8.11.2008, he was working in his fields and after completing his work, he was returning home. Then he saw Rama Devi (petitioner No.1) and her sons (petitioners No.2 and 3) were working in their fields. While the complainant was passing from there, he noticed that they were sowing wheat in his fields after destroying his sarson crop. The complainant then asked Rama Devi (petitioner No.1) and her sons (petitioners No.2 and 3) about this. On this, Satpal (petitioner No.4) who is a resident of village Crl. Misc. No. M- 64 of 2009 [2] Jaurasi stated to Rama Devi (petitioner No.1) to catch hold of the complainant. Rama Devi (petitioner No.1) caught hold of the complainant and Satpal (petitioner No.4) gave a ‘darati’ blow which hit on the fingers of the complainant. Atul (petitioner No.2) gave a ‘danda’ blow on the person of Madan Lal – brother of the complainant. Ankur (petitioner No.3) also gave a ‘danda’ blow on the person of the complainant as well as on the person of Madan Lal – brother of the complainant. The complainant side raised a hue and cry and after hearing their noise, the son of the complainant namely Vikas and their partner Sonu son of Jai Kanwar came to the spot. Both of them rescued the complainant and his brother from the assailants. The accused persons fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. While fleeing away, they had warned the complainant that on the said date, they have been saved but they will be finished. After reaching home, the complainant talked to his cousin namely Rakesh son of Birbal who is serving in Bhiwani and he advised the complainant and his brother to take treatment from a private doctor. After seeing their (complainant’s and his brother) condition, Rakesh had got them admitted in the Government Hospital at Panipat. The complainant and his brother Madan Lal were trying to settle the matter but till that date, no compromise could be effected. On 12.11.2008, when the complainant along with his cousin Rakesh were going to the Police Station to get the matter registered, the Police party met them and the statement of the complainant was recorded. It is an admitted case of the parties that the dispute is amongst the residents of the same village whose fields adjoin each other. Both the parties it is stated have amicably settled their disputes. Subhash complainant/respondent No.2 has deposed an affidavit dated 23.12.2008, wherein he has stated that he himself and the accused are neighbours as their fields as well as the houses are adjoining each other. The Panchayat of their caste has got settled the matter and they do not have any grudge against each other. They do not want to have Crl. Misc. No. M- 64 of 2009 [3] any inimical relations in the village and they want peace and harmony. Madan @ Kannu – brother of the complainant has also deposed an affidavit dated 23.12.2008 (Annexure P8) on similar lines. Both the affidavits in original are on record. It may be noticed that the injuries that are being caused by Satpal (petitioner No.4) are on the fingers of the complainant/respondent No.2 Subash i.e. on non-vital parts. The challan in the case has not been filed. The case is still under investigation. In Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, a larger Bench of five Judge of this Court 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.” Besides, in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, 2008(4) SCC 582 it has been observed that it needs to be emphasized 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 Crl. Misc. No. M- 64 of 2009 [3] 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 above and keeping in view the fact that the dispute has been amicably settled, no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the criminal prosecution. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, it would be just and expedient that the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) is quashed. In the circumstances, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and FIR No. 384 dated 12.11.2008 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Samalakha, District Panipat for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 326, 506 read with Section 34 IPC and all consequential and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom shall stand quashed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE March 25, 2009 amit