Crl. Misc. No. M-10715 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-10715 of 2009 Date of decision: 19.5.2009 Karnail Singh and Others ….. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ….. Respondents Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. Harish Goyal, Advocate for the respondent No.2 with respondent No.2 Avtar Singh in person. **** S.S. SARON, J. Avtar Singh (respondent No.2) is present in Court and is identified by his counsel Mr. Harish Goyal. It is stated by Avtar Singh that the Panchayat has got the matter compromised with the petitioners in terms of the compromise dated 19.11.2008 (Annexure P2) and he has no objection the quashing of the FIR (Annexure P1). It is also stated that the statement is being made by him of his own free will and without any kind of pressure or undue influence of anyone. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.122 dated 3.10.2003 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Morinda District Ropar for the offences under Sections 324, 326/34 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short) on the basis of compromise dated 19.11.2008 (Annexure P2). Crl. Misc. No. M-10715 of 2009 [2] The complainant Avtar Singh (respondent No.2) got lodged the FIR (Annexure P1) which was initially registered for the offences under Sections 324/34 IPC. Later offence under Section 326 IPC was added. It is alleged by the complainant that he is working as a Mason. On 2.10.2003 at about 9.20 pm when the complainant/respondent No.2 was at his house, two persons came to him and asked him his name and whether it was Avtar Singh. The complainant acknowledged the same. Then they asked him to come outside and hear them. The complainant followed the said two persons and came out in the street. On this Beant Singh @ Gurmeet Singh (petitioner No.2) son of Karnail Singh (petitioner No.1) who was armed with ‘kirpan’ came. He was accompanied by his father Karnail Singh (petitioner No.1) who raised a lalkara that the complainant should not escape and he be caught. After hearing his lalkara, Beant Singh @ Gurmeet Singh (petitioner No.2) gave a ‘kirpan’ blow on the person of the complainant. The complainant raised his left hand to save himself and the said ‘kirpan’ hit his small finger of the left hand. Thereafter, Karnail Singh (petitioner No.1) and his son (petitioner No.2) kicked the complainant in the abdomen. Because of a ‘kirpan’ blow, the small finger of the left hand was cut. The complainant raised an alarm and his wife Kamaljeet Kaur on hearing the alarm running towards the complainant and she raised an alarm hearing which the assailants (petitioners) fled away from the spot. The reason for the incident was that during the day Sukhwinder Singh son of the complainant Avtar Singh (respondent No.2) was coming from his field and carrying fodder. Then Soni son of petitioner No.1 Karnail Singh quarreled with him. Because of that, injuries were caused to the complainant. Then the complainant was taken to PGI, Chandigarh where he was admitted and his statement was recorded. After registration of FIR, Karnail Singh (petitioner No.1) alleged his false implication in the case. A thorough inquiry was conducted by Sh. Jagjit Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police who gave his report that the FIR was registered on false information. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar agreed with the said report and cancellation of FIR Crl. Misc. No. M-10715 of 2009 [3] was proposed. Besides, it was directed to initiate proceedings under Section 182 IPC against Avtar Singh (respondent No.2). Accordingly, cancellation report was submitted before the learned Magistrate which was objected by Avtar Singh (respondent No.2) by filing a protest petition. The learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 24.7.2008 observed that the complainant had specifically attributed grievous injury to the accused Beant Singh (petitioner No.2) and other injuries to the accused. The complainant/respondent No.2 did not accept the cancellation report and filed a protest petition which was treated as a criminal complaint and the case was adjourned to 5.9.2008 for consideration. Thereafter, the matter has been compromised between the petitioners and respondent No.2 on 9.11.2008. The petitioners and respondents No.2 are residents of the same village and with the intervention of respectables of village, a settlement was reached at. The petitioners and respondent No.2 now have no grudge against each other and they want to live together in a peaceful manner. The compromise entered into was reduced into writing on 19.11.2008 (Annexure P2) which is placed on record. A perusal of the said compromise shows that it is signed by both the parties. Besides, various other residents of village Kianaur Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib Distt. Ropar have signed the compromise. The parties have resolved their dispute. As already noticed, respondent No.2 Avtar Singh has stated that he has no objection to the quashing of the FIR. 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 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 prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and the time so Crl. Misc. No. M-10715 of 2009 [4] 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, this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 has been 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 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. Crl. Misc. No. M-10715 of 2009 [5] 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”. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that the matter has been compromised, no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the proceedings when the end results are known. This is more so for the reason that the Police itself had filed a cancellation report which though was not accepted by the learned Magistrate vide her order dated 24.7.2008. In any case, the matter having been amicably resolved and keeping in view the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court and this Court, it would be just and expedient to terminate the criminal proceedings by quashing the FIR (Annexure P1). Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and the case FIR No. 122 dated 3.10.2003 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Morinda Distt. Ropar for the offences under Sections 324, 326/34 IPC and all consequential and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom shall stand quashed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE May 19, 2009 amit