Ranjit Singh And ANR. v. State Of Punjab And ANR.

CRM-M No. 22643 of 2016 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No. 22643 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision : 3.8.2017 ...

Ranjit Singh and another ................Petitioners vs.

State of Punjab and another .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Madaan Present: Mr. J.S. Mahal, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Jaspreet Kaur, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. M.S. Bajwa, Advocate for respondent No.2. ...

H. S. Madaan, J. (Oral) Petitioners - Ranjit Singh and Manpreet Singh @ Manna have brought the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 17 dated 22.2.2016, for offences under Sections 324, 148, 149 IPC (326 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Gurdaspur, District Gurdaspur, against them, alongwith consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise, stated to have been effected between them and complainant Gajjan Singh - arrayed as respondent No.2.

CRM-M No. 22643 of 2016 -2When the petition came up for hearing on 8.7.2016, notice of motion was ordered to be issued. The respondent No. 1 - State of Punjab through State counsel, whereas respondent No.2 through Mr. Gagandeep S. Manku, Advocate, 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 trial Court to get their statements recorded with regard to compromise and the trial Court was directed to send a report to this Court.

Report has been received from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, in terms of which complainant -Gajjan Singh and accused, namely, Ranjit Singh and Manpreet Singh @ Manna 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 and with the intervention of the respectables. Further complainant have stated that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed by this Court. There is nothing on record to doubt the genuineness of the compromise so arrived at between the parties. Alongwith the report, copy of statements of the complainant and both the accused, have been annexed.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State counsel, learned counsel for respondent No.2, besides going through the record.

The grievous injury is on non-vital part i.e. little finger of left hand. Both the parties are related to each other. It is stated that the dispute between them was regarding the land, which has been

CRM-M No. 22643 of 2016 -3settled. 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."

CRM-M No. 22643 of 2016 -4The 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, the petition is allowed and the abovesaid FIR alongwith ancillary proceedings are hereby quashed. ( H.S. Madaan ) Judge 3.8.2017 chugh Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No Whether reportable Yes / No