CRM No.M-29239 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-29239 of 2010 Date of Decision:02.11.2010 Tarsem Kumar and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.R.D.Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Vikas Malik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) What is not disputed here is that complainant-Smt.Baljeet Kaur (respondent No.2) wife of Om Parkash, lodged a criminal case against the petitioners-accused, vide FIR No.84 dated 19.06.2004, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 148 and 149 IPC, in the Police Station Raipur Rani, District Panchkula. 2. Having completed the investigation, the police submitted the final police report/challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against the accused to face the trial for the commission of indicated offences. During the pendency of the case, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their disputes by virtue of mutual compromise-deed(Annexure P-3) with the intervention of the respectables and member Panchayat of the village. 3. That being so, now the petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing the FIR (Annexure P1) and all subsequent proceedings thereto on the basis of compromise(Annexure P-3), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia, pleading that the concerned parties have already compromised CRM No.M-29239 of 2010 2 the matter. Both the parties would withdraw their respective cases filed against each other. They would live peacefully in the village as they are neighbourers. In pursuance of the order of this Court, having recorded the statements of the concerned parties, the trial Magistrate has submitted his report and reiterated that the parties have arrived at a compromise with their own free Will and without any pressure. They have voluntarily entered into a compromise(Annexure P-3) in this respect. 4. Such, thus, being the position on record, now the sole question that arises for determination in this petition is as to whether it would be expedient in the interest of justice to quash the criminal proceedings or not? 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to me, justice would be sub-served if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter in this relevant connection. 6. The law of settlement of criminal disputes by virtue of compromise is not res integra and is well settled. The clear and explicit intention of the Legislature in this context was transformed in reality by Hon'ble Apex Court in cases Manoj Sharma v. State & Ors. 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 827; B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana 2003 (2) RCR (Crl.) 888 (SC) and Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052. 7. The epitome of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is that the power under section 482 Cr.PC 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 CRM No.M-29239 of 2010 3 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. Meaning thereby, the High Court has unlimited power to quash the criminal proceedings, relatable to such like cases, on the basis of lawful settlement. 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. 8. As is evident from the record that in the instant case, as the parties have lawfully agreed to settle the dispute, therefore, to me, there is no impediment in translating the wishes of the parties 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 as guaranteed by and as contemplated in the Constitution of India. 9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No.84 dated 19.06.2004(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and the petitioners are acquitted, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. November 02, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE