CRM No.M-18913 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-26.10.2010 Kartar Singh & others ...Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Navin Sharma, Advocate for Mr.S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G., Punjab. Mr.Kuldeep Singh Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The symposium of the facts, which need a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy raised the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that on 25.11.2008 at about 10 A.M., all the accused came to the spot and started carving out the watercourse in the land of complainant Surjit Singh (respondent No.2). The complainant party raised objection in this respect. At this, all the accused, who were armed with deadly weapons, caused injuries to the complainant, his wife Amar Kaur (respondent No.3) and mother Jamna Bibi (respondent No.4). 2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the prosecution that on 25.11.2008, all the accused caused injuries to respondent Nos.2 to 4 with their respective weapons. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant Surjit Singh, the present case was registered against the petitioners-accused, vide FIR No.258 dated 25.11.2008 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 148, 323, 324, 379, 427 and 506 read with CRM No.M-18913 of 2010 2 section 149 IPC and sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, by the police of Police Station Sadar Jalalabad, Distt.Ferozepur. 3. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report under section 173 Cr.PC/challan against the petitioners-accused in the trial Court. During the pendency of the trial, the good sense prevailed and the matter was compromised between the parties at the intervention of respectables and relatives. The complainant-respondent No.2 filed his affidavit (Annexure P2) in this regard. 4. In this manner, now 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 compromised the matter. They want to live peacefully with each other. They have no objection if the criminal proceedings against the petitioners are quashed. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 (complainant and injured witnesses), who are present today in court, have maintained and reiterated the factum of compromise, vide their separately recorded statements. 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 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 context. 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 respect 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 CRM No.M-18913 of 2010 3 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 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 injury cases, on the basis of lawful settlement. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is fully applicable to the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 9. As is evident from the record that since the parties have lawfully agreed to settle the dispute, so, 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, FIR No.258 dated 25.11.2008 (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and the petitioners are discharged, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 26.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge