CRM No.M-23275 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-28.10.2010 Anoop Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Union Territory, Chandigarh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Manish Kumar Rampal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G., Punjab. Mr.Naveen Batra, Advocate for respondent No.2. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The matrix of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the core controversy raised in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that petitioner-accused Anoop Singh was working as Sales agent/distributor of M/s Herbal Medicaments and Orchid SPA Private Ltd.(for short “the Firm”). Some dispute arose between the parties in the year 1999. According to the prosecution that the petitioner had stolen the cheques and other documents, pertaining to the firm and used the same as genuine without any legal right. He presented the cheques, which were dis-honoured and he filed a complaint against the complainant-respondent No.2 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the complainant claimed that the petitioner-accused had stolen the cheques and other documents belonging to the firm and used the same as genuine without any legal right. The cheques were presented and dis-honoured. On the CRM No.M-23275 of 2010 2 basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of Vijay Sharma, Managing Director of the firm (respondent No.2), the present case was registered against the petitioner-accused, vide FIR No.242 dated 20.4.2008 (Annexure P1) on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 380, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station Sector 17, Chandigarh, in the manner described here-in-above. 3. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report/challan against the petitioner-accused in the Court of trial Magistrate. It is not a matter of dispute that during the pendency of the case, the good sense prevailed and the parties have compromised the matter with the intervention of respectables, vide compromise deeds (Annexures P2 and P2/A). They have decided to live in peace. What is not disputed here is that the petitioner-accused has already withdrawn the complaint filed against the complainant-respondent No.2 and the parties have entered into compromise voluntarily and without any pressure or coercion from any side. The complainant, vide his separately recorded statement reiterated and maintained that the parties have amicably settled the disputes. 4. In this manner, now the petitioner has 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 amicably settled the matter at the intervention of respectables, vide compromise deeds (Annexures P2 and P2/A). The parties do not want to pursue the criminal cases registered against each other. They want to live in peace. The complainant has no objection if the FIR is quashed. 5 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? 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone CRM No.M-23275 of 2010 3 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. 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 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 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 theft and cheating cases, on the basis of lawful settlement. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is applicable in the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 9. As is evident from the record that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and they undertook to withdraw the criminal cases registered against each other. The compromise is in their welfare and interest. Since the parties have lawfully agreed to settle the dispute, so, to my mind, there is no impediment in CRM No.M-23275 of 2010 4 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 the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No.242 dated 20.4.2008 (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and the petitioner is discharged, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 28.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge