CRM-M-9911 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-9911 of 2014 Date of Decision: 09.09.2014 [ENTITY] and others Petitioners Vs. [ENTITY] and another Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] Present: Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. [ENTITY], Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No. 1-State. Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate, for respondent No. 2. [ENTITY], J. (ORAL)
By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, 'the Code'), petitioners, the accused in First Information Report (for short, 'FIR') No. 40 dated 27.05.2012 (Annexure P-1) recorded under Sections 420/465/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (for short, 'the IPC') at Police Station, Kheri Gandia, District Patiala, seek quashing of the aforesaid FIR by stating that the matter has been amicably settled between them and complainant/respondent No.2, as evidenced by the panchayati compromise dated 07.06.2012 (Annexure P-2).
Vide order dated 30.05.2014, learned trial Court was asked to record statements of the parties concerned to find out if the compromise is outcome of free will and consent of the parties and is free from any undue influence/pressure/coercion. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura, has submitted a report dated 01.08.2014 affirming that the compromise is outcome of free will and consent of the parties and is free from any undue influence/pressure/coercion.
FIR (Annexure P-1) was recorded on the statement of [ENTITY], respondent No.2, levelling allegations of fraud and cheating and criminal breach of trust, against the petitioners as regards execution of Agreement to sell relating to 21 Bighas of land.
As per panchayati compromise dated 07.06.2012 (Annexure P-2) both the parties have decided to resolve their dispute.
Complainant/respondent No.2, who is being represented by his counsel, has no objection if the afore-stated FIR and proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, as he has settled the matter with the petitioners by way of compromise.
State Counsel also does not object to acceptance of this petition and to the quashing of the aforesaid FIR.
From the above it is established that the parties to the lis have resolved their inter se dispute amicably and have resolved to live in peace and harmony. Reference may be made to a Five-Judges Bench decision of this Court in Kulwinder Singh vs. [ENTITY], 2007(3) RCR(Crl.) 1052 as well as Gian Singh vs. [ENTITY], (SC) 2012 (4) Recent Apex Judgments (RAJ) 549 and Narinder Singh and others vs. [ENTITY] and others, 2014 (2) RCR (Crl.) 482.
It is anybody's guess that the parties having entered a compromise, possibility of the trial resulting into conviction of the accused is remote and bleak and that being so continuation of criminal proceedings would visit the accused with great oppression, prejudice and extreme injustice. Rather it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice, or say abuse of the process of the Court, if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue. Ends of justice would be met only if the criminal proceedings are put to an end because this would allow the parties to translate their desire to live in peace into reality. The only consideration for the compromise reached between the parties seems to be their desire to bury the hatchet for all times to come. The compromise is also found to be in the interest of public at large, for, it will add to the peace of the society and will promote peaceful co-existence. The Courts are bound to play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of the Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.
In the consequence, I accept the petition, quash the FIR in question along with all consequent proceedings arising therefrom and discharge the petitioners/accused from the proceedings.
([ENTITY]) JUDGE September 09, 2014 nitin