Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harjinder Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 24 April, 2009
Author: S.S. Saron
Bench: S.S. Saron
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
Criminal Misc. No.M-10855 of 2009
.....
Date of decision:24.4.2009
Harjinder Singh and others
.....Petitioners
v.
State of Punjab and another
.....Respondents
....
Present: Mrs. Puja Chopra, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
Mr. Baljinder Singh Virk, Advocate for respondent No.2.
.....
S.S. Saron, J.
The original affidavit of Karam Singh and the original compromise deed are submitted in Court. The same are taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.' - for short) seeking quashing of FIR dated 3.4.2009 (Annexure-P.1) registered at Police Station Dehlon, District Ludhiana for the offences under Section 452, 354, 323, 509 and 34 Indian Penal Code (`IPC' - for short).
The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Karam Singh (respondent No.2). It is alleged by him that he is a resident of Dhaul Khurd, Police Station Dehlon and does the work of labour. On 2.4.2009, he was present at his house along with his family members at about 9.30 p.m. He heard noise of `Lalkara'. The wooden gate of his house Cr. Misc. No.M-10855 of 2009 [2] was bolted from inside. Harjinder Singh (petitioner No.1) and Manmohan Singh (petitioner No.2) sons of Surjit Singh and Varinder Singh (petitioner No.3) son of Jagdev Singh all residents of Dhaul Khurd pushed open the gate and came inside raising `Lalkara'. The complainant bolted the door of his room. However, the aforesaid persons even broke that door and came inside the room. After entering the room Varinder Singh (petitioner No.3) caught hold of the complainant from his neck and Harjinder Singh (petitioner No.1) slapped him and gave blows with his elbows. Bachan Singh son of Nikka Singh-relative of the complainant was present in the house and he tried to save them. The said persons gave fist blows to him also. Harjinder Singh (petitioner No.1) caught hold of the wife of the complainant, namely, Gurdeep Kaur from her arm and said that earlier she used to address him as Mama but now he was her `Yaar' (friend). The wife of the complainant succeeded in rescuing herself and went outside and raised an alarm which attracted the villagers. Then others came and rescued them from the assailants.
It is the case of the petitioners and respondent No.2 that they are of the same village and with the intervention of respectables of the village they have compromised the matter. It is stated that the case was registered on account of misunderstandings. They have now decided to put an end to the enmity and misunderstandings between them and decided to finish the litigation. Therefore, the compromise deed dated 15.4.2009 (Annexure-P.2) was entered into. The original of the compromise, as already noticed, has been filed in Court. Besides, affidavits (Annexures-P.3 and P.4) of Harjinder Singh (petitioner No.1) and Karam Singh (respondent Cr. Misc. No.M-10855 of 2009 [3] No.2) respectively have been deposed. The original affidavit of Karam Singh has also been filed in Court.
Learned counsel for the State has, however, opposed the quashing of the FIR.
After giving my thoughtful consideration to the mater, it may be noticed that in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582, it was observed by the Supreme Court as follows:
"We need to emphasise 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 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."
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 Cr. Misc. No.M-10855 of 2009 [4] 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 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 the present case as already noticed, it is stated that the FIR was registered due to misunderstandings and all the parties have compromised. The parties are residents of the same village. The dispute between them is personal in nature. It is a case where in order to live peacefully in the village the parties have decided to settle their dispute. Respondent No.2 as also his wife Gurdeep Kaur are present in Court and are identified by Sh.
Cr. Misc. No.M-10855 of 2009 [5] Baljinder Singh Virk, Advocate. It is stated by them that they have settled their dispute with the petitioners and they do not want to continue with the proceedings. Besides, the dispute had been settled with their own free will and without any kind of pressure or undue influence. Bachan Singh to whom the injuries are alleged to have been caused, it is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner is a signatory to the compromise deed. Therefore, the matter between the parties has indeed been settled and no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings when the same would be an exercise in futility and the end result is known.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the impugned FIR (Annexure-P.1) and all consequential and subsequent proceedings in pursuance thereof are quashed.
April 24, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*