IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-11560 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 23rd May, 2011 Inderjit Singh and another … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Gaurave Bhayyia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Sra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. Sumeet Puri, Advocate for respondent No.2. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Petitioners-Inderjit Singh and Gurmit Singh were arrayed as accused in a case FIR No.19 dated 02.02.2011 registered at Police Station Shimla Puri, District Ludhiana under Sections 341, 323, 324, 506, 34 IPC. Later-on, an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC was also added. The above said accused have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the impugned FIR on the basis of a compromise dated 23rd February, 2011 (Annexure P-2). FIR, in the present case, was registered on a statement made by Ramanjot Singh son of Amarjit Singh. It was stated in the FIR that on 30th January, 2011 at about 8.00 p.m. the complainant was accompanying Harpreet Singh along with one Gurmukh Singh. At about 9.00 p.m. on a motorcycle, 3/4 persons came and crossed the motorcycle of the complainant. They started abusing. Out of those persons, one Inderjit Singh Criminal Misc. No. M-11560 of 2011 (O&M) alias Lucky gave a fist blow on the face of Gurmukh Singh and started beating him. The other accused Gurmeet Singh alias Lucky caught hold of hair of complainant Ramanjot Singh. At that time, Inderjit Singh alias Lucky caused injuries on the back of complainant with a sharp edged weapon. It is stated that Inderjit Singh and Gurmeet Singh were accompanied by two other boys. HC Balwinder Singh, Police Station Shimla Puri, District Ludhiana is present in Court to assist counsel for the State. He has identified Gurmukh Singh and Ramanjot Singh, who are also present in Court. Counsel for the State has stated that the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been submitted in the Court of concerned Area Judicial Magistrate. Complainant Ramanjot Singh had suffered a solitary injury on his back. This injury was declared as dangerous to life. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon ‘Atma Singh v. State of Punjab’ 1982(2) CLR 496 to contend that the term ‘dangerous to life’ will fall within the ambit of Clause eightly of Section 320 IPC and thus, the offence, if any, will fall under Section 326 and not under 307 IPC. This Court need not to determine this argument, as Gurmukh Singh and Ramanjot Singh are present in person in Court. Ramanjot Singh, who is injured in the occurrence, has stated that he does not intend to pursue the present FIR, as due to intervention of the respectable persons a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. Mr. Sumeet Puri, Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant-respondent No.2, has stated that the complainant and the accused are young lads, who on the spur of the moment, due to crossing of motorcycles, after exchange of abuses, had a fight with each other. Mr.Puri has further stated that since the accused and the complainant belong to the 2 Criminal Misc. No. M-11560 of 2011 (O&M) same locality, due to intervention of elders they have decided to bury the hatchet and start their life afresh. It is stated that the parties have decided to promote everlasting peace, amity and harmony. Counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 has prayed to this Court that the compromise being the finest hour, this Court should allow the parties to resume cordial relations. Counsel for the parties have also placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in ‘Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another’ 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, wherein it has been held as under: “28. The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. 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. 29. 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. 3 Criminal Misc. No. M-11560 of 2011 (O&M) 30. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para-meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restraint. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.” Counsel for the State has also submitted that in case the parties intend to create social harmony, the State will not stand in the way of compromise. In view of the broad consensus arrived at between the parties and considering the ratio of law laid down in Kulwinder Singh’s case (supra), present petition is accepted and the impugned FIR along with all subsequent proceedings is quashed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE May 23, 2011 rps 4