CRM No.M-24712 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-4.10.2010 Vicky and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Aman Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Vikas Malik, A.A.G. Haryana. Mr.Sukhwinder Singh Kamboj, Advocate for respondent No.2. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The matrix of the facts, which needs a necessary mention, for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, raised in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that on 6.6.2010 at about 5.30 P.M., complainant Mukesh Sehgal son of Kirpa Ram Sehgal (respondent No.2) was present at his shuttering shop. In the meantime, three persons came there and asked him to take the shuttering to Panchkula, but the complainant refused to oblige them. According to the prosecution that thereafter they started beating him and took away Rs.80,000/- alongwith one golden chain after giving him blow with an iron rod. He raised noise and followed them, but they decamped from the place of occurrence. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations, in all, the prosecution claimed that the petitioners-accused caused injuries to the complainant and took away his Rs.80,000/- alongwith one golden chain. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioners-accused, vide FIR No.98 dated 6.6.2010 on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 323, 452 and 506 read CRM No.M-24712 of 2010 2 with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Pinjore, Distt.Panchkula. 3. During the course of the investigation, the good sense prevailed and the matter was compromised between the parties. They have amicably settled their dispute. 4. In this manner, the petitioner has now claimed that the FIR and all subsequent proceedings thereto be quashed, inter-alia, pleading that as the compromise took place with the intervention of respectables and relatives of the parties, therefore, they do not want to prolong the litigation. In order to substantiate the validity of the compromise, the complainant filed his affidavit (Annexure P1) in this regard, in which, he has stated that now he has no grudge against the petitioners-accused and they want to live peacefully. He does not want to pursue this case. 5. 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 prosecution 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 me, justice would be sub-served if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter in this relevant connection. 7. 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. 8. 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 CRM No.M-24712 of 2010 3 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. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is fully applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 9. Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that as the parties have already compromised the matter, 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. 10. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, the aforesaid FIR and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and the petitioners-accused are discharged, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 4.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge