Crl. Misc.No.M 26057 of 2010 # 1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAT AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc.No.M 26057 of 2010 Date of Decision:-13.12.2010 Mohar Singh & Ors. ......Petitioners. Versus State of Punjab & Anr. ......Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. Ranjit Sharma, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab. Mr. Dhanwant Singh Virk, Advocate for the Respondent no.2-Complainant. *** JASWANT SINGH, J. Prayer is under section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of case FIR No.50 dated 4.10.2004 under Sections 324, 326, 336, 148, 149 of IPC and under Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act registered with Police Station Khem Karan, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran on the basis of compromise (P2) arrived at between the parties. As per allegations levelled in the FIR, on 1.10.2004 at about 10.30 pm an electricity bulb was on in front of the house of the complainant. He was turning his truck no.RJ 13-G 3825 and his grandfather Ram Singh and Dayal Singh were standing on road near him. By that time petitioners- Crl. Misc.No.M 26057 of 2010 # 2# Mohan Singh armed with Takwa, Pargat Singh @ Bhansa armed with 12 bore Double barrel gun, Sahib Singh armed with Dang, Jaswant Singh armed with Dang came there and on raising lalkara by petitioner Jaswant Singh all the accused attacked the complainant and inflicted serious injuries on the person of complainant with their respective weapons in order to teach the complainant a lesson for parking his truck on the roadside. On raising alarm by the father of the complainant accused ran away from the spot. Thereupon the present FIR was got registered by the complainant. Upon notice of motion respondent no.2-complainant has put in appearance and has been identified by his counsel Sh. D.S. Virk, Advocate as well as by Head Constable Lekh Raj, No.758 Police Station Khem Karan, Tarn Taran. He has stated that the he has compromised the matter with the petitioners in the aforesaid FIR and he has no objection if the aforesaid FIR and all consequential proceedings are quashed against the petitioners. Statement of respondent no.2-complainant has also been separately recorded. He has undertaken to abide by the terms and conditions of the compromise deed(P2). Learned State Counsel on instructions from HC Lekh Raj is unable to raise any serious objection in view of the statement recorded in terms of the aforesaid compromise whereby the complainant is not willing to support the case of the prosecution. Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2003)4 SCC 675 B.S. Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Another has made it explicitly clear in para 15 of its judgment that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or effect the powers under Section 482 of the Crl. Misc.No.M 26057 of 2010 # 3# Code. A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has also held that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash an FIR disclosing the commission of non- compoundable offences. The relevant extracts read as under:- “The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C., which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.” Hon'ble Apex Court in another case in J.T. 2008(9) S.C. 192 Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another while relying upon its decision in B.S. Joshi's case(supra) has also held that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of criminal proceedings and the continuance of the same after compromise between the parties would be a futile exercise. Similar views were expressed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abot v. State of Punjab 2008(4) SCC 582, the relevant extract of which is 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 Crl. Misc.No.M 26057 of 2010 # 4# 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.” Keeping in view the above settled legal position and taking into account the fact that the both the parties have desired to live in peace and harmony and carry on with their lives without any ill will or rancour by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, it is evident that it is a fit case where there is no legal impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of the FIR in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.50 dated 4.10.2004 under Sections 324, 326, 336, 148, 149 of IPC and under Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act registered with Police Station Khem Karan, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed against the petitioners. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE 13th December, 2010 Vinay