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