Criminal Misc.No.M-24191 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-14.9.2010 Baljit Singh ...Petitioner Versus Tarsem Heer ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Harinder Kumar Aurora, Advocate with the petitioner. Mr.Daljeet Singh Kahlon, Advocate with the respondent. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The epitome of the facts, that need a necessary mention, relevant for disposal of present petition and emanating from the record, is that complainant Tarsem Heer filed the complaint (Annexure P1) against the accused-petitioner, inter-alia, on the ground that he belongs to scheduled caste. On 18.10.2009 at about 5 P.M., the complainant went to the office of the accused and apprised him of his qualification, experience and requested him to give a suitable job at the salary of Rs.7000/- per month. At this, the accused lost his tamper and abused the complainant while saying “Kuttaya Chamaara Tuhade Lai Eh Nokri Nahi Hai, Tusi Apni Aukat Vich Reha Karo”. The complainant objected to it. Thereafter, the accused became furious, picked up a hockey stick and gave it on his legs. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations, in all, according to the complainant, the petitioner has hurled abuses and uttered the above mentioned words in the public view and caused injuries with a hockey stick on his legs. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the complainant filed the present complaint (Annexure P1) on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under sections 3 & 5 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Criminal Misc.No.M-24191 of 2010 2 Atrocities) Act and sections 323 and 500 IPC in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 3. Having completed all the codal formalities, the accused was summoned to face the trial, vide order dated 6.1.2010 (Annexure P2). During the pendency of the case, the good sense prevailed and the matter was compromised between the parties at the intervention of respectables of the society. They have decided to live peacefully and not to initiate any legal proceedings against each other. 4. In this manner, the petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the complaint (Annexure P1), summoning order (Annexure P2) and all subsequent proceedings thereto on the basis of compromise, invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia, pleading that the parties have compromised the matter. Both the parties have executed the compromise deed (Annexure P4) in this regard. In order to substantiate the validity of the compromise, the parties, vide their separately recorded statements, reiterated and have stated that they have compromised the matter with the intervention of respectables of the society and prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings. As per compromise deed, they will live with love and peace and no party will initiate any legal proceedings against each other. The complainant will withdraw his complaint and the parties will abide by the terms of the compromise. 5. Such thus being the position on record, now the core 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? 6. Having regard to the rival contentions of the 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 parties are allowed to compromise the matter in this relevant connection. 7. The theory of penology/strict punishment underwent a drastic change Criminal Misc.No.M-24191 of 2010 3 with the passage of time and the evolution of law of settlement appear on the scene, which is primarily based on the theory of reformation of the accused. The statutory penal provision pales into insignificance in the wake of insertion of new Chapter XXI-A by Amendment Act No.2 of 2006 and amendment in expansion of scope of compounding the offences under section 320 Cr.PC. At the same time, 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 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. 8. The crux 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 attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is adhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery if the statement is fair being free from under pressure. 9. However, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manoj Sharma's case (supra), has restricted the scope of quashing the criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise in serious offences and ruled (para 33) as under:- “There can be no doubt that a case under Section 302 IPC or other serious offences like those under Sections 395, 397 or 304B cannot be compounded and hence proceedings in those provisions cannot be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.PC, or in writ jurisdiction on the basis of compromise. Criminal Misc.No.M-24191 of 2010 4 However, in some other cases, (like those akin to a civil nature) the proceedings can be quashed by the High Court if the parties have come to an amicable settlement even though the provisions are not compoundable. Where a line is to be drawn will have to be decided in some later decisions of this Court, preferably by a larger bench (so as to make it more authoritative). Some guidelines will have to be evolved in this connection and the matter cannot be left at the sole unguided discretion of Judges, otherwise there may be conflicting decisions and judicial anarchy. A judicial discretion has to be exercised on some objective guiding principles and criteria, and not on the whims and fancies of individual Judges. Discretion, after all, cannot be the Chancellor's foot.” 10. Meaning thereby, the High Court has unlimited power to quash the criminal proceedings, on the basis of lawful settlement within the frame work and restriction depicted by Hon'ble Apex Court. 11. As is evident from the record that in the instant case, the parties are lawfully agreed to settle the dispute. The restriction of heinous offences emanating from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manoj Sharma's case (supra) is not at all attracted to the present case. 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. 12. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, the complaint (Annexure P1), summoning order (Annexure P2) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and the petitioner is discharged, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 14.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge