Shivraj Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Mr. Kamal Jeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. Kuldeep Singh Chaudhary, Advocate for the complainant. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Cr. Misc. No.62138 of 2010: Reply of Sukhwinder Singh (respondent No.2) attached with the criminal miscellaneous application is taken on record. The criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of. Cr. Misc. No.M-10825/2010: Sukhwinder Singh, complainant (respondent No.2) is present in Court with his counsel. It is stated by him that he has no objection to the quashing of the FIR against the petitioners as the matter has been amicably settled. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.941 dated 4.12.2008 Cr. Misc. No.M-10825 of 2010 [2] (Annexure-P.1) registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda for the offences under Sections 447, 511, 427, 148 and 149 Indian penal Code. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Sukhwinder Singh (respondent No.2). It is stated by him that he resides in his house which is in the fields. His Dhani (out house in the fields) is known as Romaian Di Dhani. They are four brothers and own 28 acres of land. The entire property is in the name of his father. His father purchased 7 Bighas of land from one Jangir Singh son of Wariam Singh for a consideration of `49,500/- in the year 1983. Khasra Numbers of this land are 4021 and 4022, Khewat No. is 190/777 which is recorded in the Jamabandi for the year 1977-78. On the date of the incident i.e. 4.12.2008 at about 3.00/4.00 p.m., Sukhwinder Singh, his brothers Rajinder Singh, Balwinder Singh and his son Harpal Singh were working in the fields. When they reached in their land situated at the backside of Petrol Pump, there was one trolley loaded with bricks and two cars were there in their land. They had sown wheat crop in the land. There were 15-20 persons present. Some of them were working with spades and `Bathals' and were trying to take possession of their land. Shivraj Singh, Sarpanch and Darshan Singh residents of Loolhbai were amongst them. They were known to the complainant earlier. As they were large number of persons so they did not go near them. They informed Ashok Kumar alias Hari Om on telephone about all this. Along with him they were going to give information to the Police that the Police met them on the way and his statement was recorded. The accused destroyed their crop and tried to take possession. Cr. Misc. No.M-10825 of 2010 [3] The matter has now been compromised between the parties vide compromise dated 5.4.2010. It is stated in the compromise that the first party i.e. the accused will not claim any right in the land owned and purchased by the second party through registered sale deed No.1469 dated

10.6.1983. Besides, second party i.e. respondent No.2 has agreed not to pursue the criminal case which was registered against the first party and the second party has also agreed to make a statement before this Court to get the aforesaid case cancelled. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that in case the matter has been amicably settled, the State would have no serious objection to the quashing of the FIR. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the dispute between the parties is amongst nearby villagers of the same area. They have amicably resolved their dispute in terms of compromise (Annexure-P.2) entered into between them. The challan in the case has been filed. However, charges have not been framed. Therefore, to carry on with the trial would be an exercise in futility as the end result is already known. Besides, the time saved in going through the trial of the present case can be utilized in deciding other cases. 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 Cr. Misc. No.M-10825 of 2010 [4] 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 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, Cr. Misc. No.M-10825 of 2010 [5] 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.” 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 shall stand disposed of. November 30, 2010. *hsp* (S.S. Saron) Judge