CRM No.M-26900 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-6.10.2010 Budhu & others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Krishan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Vikas Malik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Mr.S.K.Biriwal, Advocate respondent No.2. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The conspectus of the facts, which needs a necessary mention, to decide the core controversy involved in the present petition and emanating from the record, is that on 23.8.2010, complainant Jaipal (respondent No.2) went to the house of petitioners-accused in search of goat. He requested them to return the goat, but in vain. At about 9 p.m., he alongwith Ram Chander went to the house of Sarpanch to lodge the protest. Thereafter, petitioner-accused Budhu also came there and gave leg blow to him and Ram Chander tried to rescue him from his clutches. He gave slaps and fist blows to the complainant. The prosecution claimed that when the complainant party was going to their house, in the meantime, accused Shashi armed with a gandasi came there and he gave the gandasi blow on the ankle of left leg of the complainant. He fell down after receipt of the injury. Thereafter, petitioner-accused Mahinder gave a Saria blow on the forehead of PW Ram Chander. Then Budhu repeated the injuries and gave Saria blow, which hit the right shoulder of the complainant. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations, in all, the prosecution case is that all the accused caused injuries to the complainant party with their respective weapons. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant Jaipal, the present case was registered against the accused, vide FIR No.84 dated 25.8.2010 (Annexure P1) on accusation of having committed the CRM No.M-26900 of 2010 2 offences punishable under sections 323, 324 and 326 read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Jathalana, Distt.Yamuna Nagar, in the manner described here-in-a3bove. 3. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the challan/final police report under section 173 Cr.PC against the accused. 4. It is not a matter of dispute that during the pendency of the trial, good sense prevailed and the matter was compromised between the parties at the intervention of respectable persons. They have settled all their disputes and decided to live peacefully. 5. In this manner, the petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing the FIR (Annexure P1) 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 executed the compromise deed (Annexure P2). The complainant and injured PW Ram Chander also filed their affidavits (Annexures P3 and P4) respectively in this respect. In order to substantiate the validity of the compromise, vide their statements recorded separately, they have stated that they have compromised the matter with the intervention of respectables and prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings. As per compromise deed, the parties have amicably settled their disputes; they will not do any act against each other and the complainant and injured PW do not want to pursue the FIR. 6. Above 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 prosecution or not? 7. 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 me, justice would be sub-served if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter in this relevant behalf. 8. The law of settlement of criminal disputes by virtue of compromise CRM No.M-26900 of 2010 3 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. 9. 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 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. 10. Meaning thereby, the High Court has unlimited power to quash the criminal proceedings, relatable to injury cases, on the basis of lawful settlement. As the parties are lawfully agreed to settle the dispute, therefore, to my mind, 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. 11. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No.84 dated 25.8.2010 (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and all the petitioners are discharged, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 6.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge