Criminal Misc.No.M-13008 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-13.9.2010 Daljeet Singh & another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.J.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Ms.Anjali Khosla, Advocate with respondent No.2. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The matrix of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of present petition and emanating from the record, is that complainant Sukhmander Singh filed the complaint (Annexure P1) against the accused- petitioners, inter-alia, on the ground that on 23.4.2008 at about 9.30 PM, as soon as the complainant was reconciling his accounts in the presence of Gurnam Singh son of Darshan Singh, in the meantime, accused Daljeet Singh, SHO of Police Station Kotbhai and Sukhwinder Singh HC came there under the influence of liquor armed with their service weapons. Petitioner No.1 asked the complainant as to why he was not obliging them and told accused No.2 to take the whole amount and two carrots of Royal Stag Whisky. When the complainant and his servants (Karinda) requested them not to do so, then the accused abused them, proclaimed “Dheda Churian”, forcibly pushed the complainant into the car and took him to the police station, where he was got confined in illegal detention. In the wake of receipt of information, Sardool Singh Ex-Sarpanch and Gulab Singh came to the Criminal Misc.No.M-13008 of 2010 2 police station and the complainant was released at their intervention. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations, in all, according to the complainant, the accused illegally confined the complainant, threatened him with dire consequences and committed the offence punishable under sections 342, 347, 392, 452, 352, 506, 323 and 120-B IPC and section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in the court of Illaqa Magistrate, in the manner detailed here-in-above. 3. During the pendency of the complaint, 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. 4. In this manner, the petitioners have 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 P3) to this effect. In order to substantiate the validity of the compromise, the parties, vide their separately recorded statements, reiterated and have stated that they have amicably settled the matter with the intervention of respectables of the society and prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings. As per compromise deed (Annexure P3), the parties will not do any such act in future, live together, the complainant will withdraw his complaint, the petitioners will not file any civil or criminal case regarding damages, complainant shall be bound to give his statement in the High Court regarding compromise and the compromise has been effected between the parties with their own free will and without any pressure. 5. Such thus being the position on record, now the short and significant 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? Criminal Misc.No.M-13008 of 2010 3 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 deep consideration over the 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 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 Criminal Misc.No.M-13008 of 2010 4 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. 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 Criminal Misc.No.M-13008 of 2010 5 accepted. Consequently, the complaint (Annexure P1), summoning order (Annexure P2) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and all the accused are discharged, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 13.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge