Bikramjit Singh and others vs State of Punjab and others

Vide this order I intend to dispose of two petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 48 dated 24.5.2011, for offences under

Sections 326,325, 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Ghuman, District Batala, Gurdaspur against Bikramjit Singh and others

(petitioners in CRM-M-29751-2017) and DDR No. 17 dated 27.5.2011 for offences under Sections 452, 324, 323, 326, 148 149 IPC in the

above said FIR, against Sukhchain Singh and others (petitioners in CRM-M-29375-2017), alongwith consequential proceedings arising therefrom,

on the basis of compromise, stated to have been effected between them.

Briefly stated, facts of the case, as per prosecution story are that FIR No. 48 dated 24.5.2011, for offences under Sections 326,325, 324, 323,

148, 149 IPC, was registered at Police Station Ghuman, District Batala, Gurdaspur, recorded on the basis of statement of Sukhchain Singh s/o

Kulwant Singh against Bikramjit Singh s/o Baldev Singh, Balwinder Singh s/o Ram Singh, Tejpal Singh s/o Lakhwinder Singh, Satnam Singh s/o

Baldev Singh, Gurtej Singh s/o Bikramjit Singh, Amrik Singh s/o Baldev Singh, Pappi s/o Amrik Singh and Jasbir Kaur w/o Bikramjit Singh,

having caused injuries to Sukhchain Singh, Pritam Singh and Surjit Singh.

The facts of the case in DDR No. 17 dated 27.5.2011, in the abovesaid FIR, as per prosecution version are that on 10.5.2011, at about 7.00

P.M. when complainant Gurtej Singh s/o Bikramjit Singh r/o Dhira aged about 17 years, a student, was present at his home, his mother Jasbir

Kaur was doing house hold work, then Sukhchain Singh armed with a datar, Surjit Singh s/o Pritam Singh armed with a datar, Kulwant Singh s/o

Pritam Singh armed with a kirpan, Kanwalpreet Singh s/o Surjit Singh armed with a kirpan, Gurshabad Singh s/o Balbir Singh empty handed, Love

@ Loveleen Singh s/o Malkiat Singh empty handed, residents of Dhira, came to their house. On exhortation having been raised by Love @

Loveleen Singh, that complainant side should be taught a lesson for interfering in their land, Sukhchain Singh gave a datar blow to the complainant,

hitting him on his left eyebrow, Surjit Singh gave a datar blow to the complainant hitting him on his leg. When Jasbir Kaur tried to intervene to save

Gurtej Singh, then Kulwant Singh gave a kirpan blow hitting her on her left ankle. Then Kanwalpreet Singh gave a kirpan blow hitting Jasbir Kaur

on left hand finger. Complainant and Jasbir Kaur both injured fell down then Love @ Loveleen Singh and Gurshabad gave fist blows upon them.

On alarm being raised by the injured and on arrival of several persons to the spot, the assailants ran away from the spot alongwith their respective

weapons.

The incident is outcome of dispute regarding land, which was in the form of certain quarrel between both the parties who are related to each

other. It is stated that the dispute which was a result of misunderstanding, has since been resolved with intervention of the respectables and both

the parties closely related to each other and residents of the same village and they want to live together in peace and harmony.

When the petitions came up for hearing on 24.8.2017, notice of motion was ordered to be issued. The respondent No. 1 - State of Punjab

through State counsel, whereas respondents No.2 to 4 through Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate (in CRM-M-29751-2017), and respondents No. 2

and 3 through Mr. G.S. Sirphikhi, Advocate (in CRM-M-29375-2017) had put in appearance. Then in light of the contention that parties have

since effected compromise, they were directed to put in appearance before the Illaqa Magistrate to get their statements recorded with regard to

compromise and the Illaqa Magistrate was directed to send a report to this Court.

Report has been received from Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Batala, in terms of which complainants Sukhchain Singh, Kulwant Singh and

Surjit Singh and accused Bikramjit Singh, Balwinder Singh, Tejpal Singh, Satnam Singh, Gurtej Singh @ Gurbhej Singh, Amrik Singh, Pappi and

Jasbir Kaur (in CRM-M- 29751-2017) and complainants Gurtej Singh and Jasbir Kaur and accused Sukhchain Singh, Surjit Singh, Kulwant

Singh, Love @ Loveleen Singh (in CRM-M-29375-2017) had appeared there and their statements were recorded, in terms of which they have

admitted to have entered into a voluntary compromise, with free will, without any pressure, coercion or undue influence. Further they have stated

that they have no objection if the FIR and DDR in question are quashed by this Court. There is nothing on record to doubt the genuineness of the

compromise so arrived at between the parties. It has been further reported that accused Kanwal Preet Singh and Gurshabad Singh have been

declared proclaimed offenders and they have not appeared for recording their statements. Alongwith the report statements of the complainant

party and accused party, have been annexed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, learned State counsel, besides going through the record.

Keeping in view the fact that the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably, which appears to have been arrived at between them

voluntarily without any threat or coercion and in terms of ratio of the authority reported as Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and

others 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, where in para 28, it has been held as under :-

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.

It has been observed that High Court has power to quash the prosecution in order to achieve the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of

process of law. Though such powers are unlimited but those are to be exercised very sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The compromise

is in interest of peace and tranquility in the society and for such like reasons this Court can quash the FIR and ancillary proceedings exercising

power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it appears to be a fit case to exercise such powers.

Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed and the abovesaid FIR and DDR alongwith ancillary proceedings are hereby quashed, qua the

petitioners only in both the cases. It is clarified that this order shall not be effective qua accused Kanwal Preet Singh and Gurshabad Singh who

have been declared as proclaimed offenders. The Investigating Agency/ prosecution may proceed against them in accordance with law.