Balbir Singh vs State of Punjab

P.K. Jain,

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ''the Code'') for quashing the First Information Report No. 84 dated 17.5.1994, registered at Police Station Sadar Jalalabad for the offences under Sections 326/325/342/323/34 I.P.C. (Annexure P1) and all subsequent proceedings thereto. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that Attar Singh (respondent No. 2) alongwith his nephews is residing in a house constructed in his field. On 16.5.1994, at about 8.30 A.M., the petitioners duly armed with dangs, kappa and gandasi went in a jeep to the fields of the said respondent who apprehended forcible dispossession at the hands of the petitioners. The jeep was parked. On exhortation being given by petitioner No. 1, Manohar Singh, petitioner No. 2 gave a kappa blow to respondent No. 1 who raised his left hand which hit his index finger and tip of the finger was cut off. He was caught by his neck by Kehar Singh petitioner and Balbir Singh petitioner No. 5 gave fist blow on his mouth due to which his front tooth of the lower jaw was broken. When his uncle Sohan Singh came forward to rescue him he was caught by his hair and was dragged towards the farm house. Baj Singh removed the injured (respondent No. 2) to the hospital and got him admitted there. 3. On a statement made by respondent No. 2, First Information Report (Annexure P.1) was registered. After due investigation, Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar Jalalabad submitted a cancellation report dated 15.6.94 (Annexure P2) to the court. Respondent No. 2 was summoned and his statement was recorded. The trial Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the petitioners to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 326/325/323/34 I.P.C. It appears that thereafter the petitioners entered into a compromise with respondent No. 2 and an affidavit (Annexure P3) was sworn by respondent No. 2 in that respect. Since the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. is not compoundable even with the permission of the court, the petitioners have filed the present petition. 4. Notice was issued to the respondent. In reply, he has admitted that he has entered into a compromise in respect of this occurrence at the intervention of the relatives and respectable persons and the F.I.R. was lodged under some misunderstanding. It has been further stated that he has no objection if the impugned F.I.R. and the further proceedings taken in pursuance thereof are quashed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It cannot be disputed that the High Court has inherent powers to pass orders under the Code to secure the ends of justice. Hence, if it comes to the knowledge of the High Court that in recording the compromise of the case, ends of justice would be secured, it is essential to pass such orders. It may be further noted that even otherwise, not to allow compromise may also result in such circumstances leading to the same result because the complainant in that case would not support the prosecution story and the Court in stead of advancing the cause of justice would encourage perjury and if that is not done at trial, evil thoughts will again start in the minds of the parties for having another innings of battle. 6. In Y. Suresh Babu v. State of A.P. and another, JT 1987(2) S.C. 361, an offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, which is noncompoundable, was allowed to be compounded by their lordships of the Supreme Court of India. Similarly, in Mahesh Chand and another v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 2111, their lordships of the apex Court permitted the parties to compound an offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code. Similarly in Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1993(2) Chandigarh Criminal Cases 444, the parties had come to a compromise and filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the First Information Report recorded for the offences under Sections 307/326/324/323/148/149 I.P.C. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the same was quashed by this Court. Similarly the First Information Report was quashed by me in Criminal Misc. No. 11690M of 1995

Mohinder Singh Khosla and others v. The State of U.T. and another decided on 1.11.1995. (1996(1) Recent Criminal Reports 120). Reference can also be made to a recent judgment of this court delivered in Satwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1996(4) Recent Criminal Cases 21. 7. In the present case, admittedly, the parties had entered into a compromise at the intervention of their relatives and respectables of the village. No useful purpose would be served if the petitioners are required to face the trial inasmuch as the complainant is not going to support the prosecution in view of the affidavit (Annexure P3) sworn by him. Even in his reply, respondent No. 2 has stated that he had lodged the First Information Report on some misunderstanding. In these circumstances trial of the petitioners would be an exercise in futility which ought to be avoided. 8. As a result of the above discussion, I accept this petition and hereby quash the impugned First Information Report No. 84 dated 17.5.1994 registered at Police Station Jalalabad (Annexure P.1) and the subsequent proceedings taken in pursuance thereof including the summoning order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka.