CRM No. M-35018 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-35018 of 2011 Date of Decision:-16.2.2012 [ENTITY] & Anr. Petitioners Versus The [ENTITY] & Ors. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.[ENTITY], Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.[ENTITY], AAG Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr.[ENTITY], Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3. [ENTITY], J. (Oral)
The contour of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that the marriage of [ENTITY] (respondent No.3) was solemnized with complainant [ENTITY] son of [ENTITY] respondent No.2 (for brevity "the complainant"). After the solemnization of marriage, they were residing as husband and wife in village Dalmir Khera. The wife of the complainant is stated to be deaf and dumb and is unable to understand her gain or loss. According to the prosecution that on 19.7.2005, petitioners [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], brothers of [ENTITY], fraudulently got a sale deed executed, in respect of land measuring 2 killas, situated in village Jhurar Khera in their favour, without paying the amount of consideration. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioners, vide FIR No.175 dated 5.6.2006 (Annexure P1) on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT] by the police of Police Station City Abohar, District Fazilka, in the manner indicated hereinabove.
2. After the completion of investigation, the police submitted the final police report under [SECTION] [ACT]/challan against the petitioners in the trial Court. Having completed all the codal formalities, the trial court framed the charges against them and the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution.
3. During the pendency of criminal case, the good sense prevailed between the parties being close relatives. They have settled their dispute, by virtue of compromise deed (Annexure P2). The complainant and his wife have also filed the reply, by way of affidavit, in which, it was reiterated that they have entered into compromise (Annexure P2) and affidavit of the complainant (Annexure P3) is also to that effect. They have no objection if the FIR (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. They have executed the compromise and affidavit voluntarily and without any kind of pressure or under undue influence. That means, the parties have amicably settled their disputes in the manner described hereinbefore. Moreover, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that in view of the settlement of dispute between the parties, the instant petition deserves to be accepted.
4. Such thus being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in the petition is, as to whether the FIR (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed in this relevant behalf or not?
5. Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, justice would be sub-served, if the FIR (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed and the parties are allowed to live in peace.
6. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the law of settlement of criminal disputes by means of compromise is no more res-integra and is well settled. The clear and explicit intention of the Legislature in this regard was transformed in reality by Hon'ble Apex Court in cases [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT] and Full Bench of this Court in case [ENTITY] and others v. [ENTITY] and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, wherein it was ruled that the High Court has vast inherent power to quash the criminal prosecution on the basis of mutual settlement between the parties.
7. The epitome of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is that the power under [SECTION] [ACT] has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever- lasting congeniality in society and resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a 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 if the statement is fair being free from under pressure.
8. Meaning thereby, the High Court has unlimited power to quash the criminal proceedings, relatable to such dispute, on the basis of lawful settlement within the frame work and restriction depicted by Hon'ble Supreme Court. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgments "mutatis mutandis" is fully attracted in the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.
9. As is evident from the record that in the instant case, the parties have amicably settled their disputes. They undertook to abide by the terms and conditions of settlement (Annexure P2). They are closely related and will live in peace with harmony in future. As the compromise is in the interest of both the parties, therefore, to me, there is no impediment in translating their wishes into reality and to quash the criminal prosecution to set the matter at rest to enable them to live in peace and to enjoy the life and liberty in a dignified manner.
10. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, the FIR (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. The petitioners are acquitted of the charges framed against them, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
16.2.2012 ([ENTITY]) AS Judge