IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Criminal Misc. No.M-12345 of 2011 (O&M) Rashpal Singh and others … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents 2. Criminal Misc. No.M-12346 of 2011 (O&M) Jaswinder Singh and others … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents Date of decision: 23rd May, 2011 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Harchand Singh Batth, Advocate for the petitioners in CRM No.M-12345 of 2011. Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners in CRM No.M-12346 of 2011. Mr. B.S. Sra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) By this common order, two petitions viz. (1) CRM No.M- 12345 of 2011 titled as ‘Rashpal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others’ and (2) CRM No.M-12346 of 2011 titled as ‘Jaswinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others’ shall be decided together. In CRM No.M-12345 of 2011, a prayer has been made that case FIR No.125 dated 12.09.2004 registered at Police Station Sarhali, District Tarn Taran under Sections 323, 324, 325, 326, 148 and 149 IPC be quashed on the basis of a compromise (Annexure P-5) dated 20th April, 2011. In CRM No.M-12346 of 2011, it has been prayed that the Criminal Misc. No. M-12345 of 2011 (O&M) and Criminal Misc. No. M-12346 of 2011 (O&M) cross version to the above said FIR be also quashed as the parties have arrived at a compromise. Occurrence, in the present case, had taken place on 8th September, 1994 at about 8.30 a.m. and in the said occurrence both sides received injuries. A version and cross-version have been divulged by the parties. In the FIR case, Rashpal Singh, Sarabjit Singh, Jasbir Singh, Ajit Singh, Balbir Singh son of Rashpal Singh, Tasveer Singh alias Goli, Balbir Singh son of Gian Singh and Mahinder Singh have been arrayed as accused. They had caused injuries to Jaswinder Singh, Chainchal Singh and Amritpal Singh. In the cross version, Jaswinder Singh, Amritpal Singh, Harpal Singh, Rajinder Singh, Chainchal Singh, Avtar Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Harinder Singh have been arrayed as accused for causing injuries to Rashpal Singh and Jasbir Singh. Today, all the injured namely Jaswinder Singh, Chainchal Singh, Amritpal Singh, Rashpal Singh and Jasbir Singh are present in Court. They have been identified by the Investigating Officer SI/SHO Lakhwinder Singh (at present posted at Police Station Chola Sahib), who has come to the Court to assist counsel for the State. Mr. Harchand Singh Batth, Advocate appearing for the accused in the FIR case and Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused in cross version case, have stated that the accused in the FIR case and in the cross case are co-villagers and at the intervention of respectable persons they have decided to bury the hatchet and promote amity, harmony and everlasting peace. They have further submitted that both the parties have decided not to pursue the FIR and cross case. 2 Criminal Misc. No. M-12345 of 2011 (O&M) and Criminal Misc. No. M-12346 of 2011 (O&M) Counsel for the State has submitted that in case social harmony is achieved, the State will not stand in the way of quashing of the FIR and cross case. A Full Bench of this Court in ‘Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another’ 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held as under: “28. The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, en- hances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is "finest hour of justice". Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation. 29. The only inevitable conclusion from the above dis- cussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Sec- tion 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwith- standing the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of jus- tice. 30. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of proc- ess of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para-meters to enable a High Court to invoke or ex- ercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the 3 Criminal Misc. No. M-12345 of 2011 (O&M) and Criminal Misc. No. M-12346 of 2011 (O&M) facts and circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspec- tion and restraint. 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. 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 ab- horrent to lawful composition of the society or would pro- mote savagery.” After hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the ratio of law laid down in Kulwinder Singh’s case (supra) is fully applicable on the facts of the present case and if the parties are permitted to resume their cordial relations, it will be in the interest of all. Hence, the present petition is accepted and the impugned FIR along with the cross version including all subsequent proceedings is quashed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE May 23, 2011 rps 4