CRM No.M-23405 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 22.09.2010 Rakesh Kumar and others ....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Rajesh K. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G., Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr.Narinder Singh Dadwal, Advocate for respondent No.2. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The conspectus of the facts, which needs necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy raised in this petition, is that on 09.08.2008 at about 7.15 P.M, complainant-respondent No.2 was standing in front of his house situated in Mohalla Akash Nagar, Hoshiarpur. In the meantime, petitioners-accused Rakesh Kumar and Satpal came there along with two unidentified persons on two motorcycles. They were armed with datars and forcibly entered into the premises and ransacked the shop of the complainant. When the complainant raised objection in this regard, the accused forcibly entered his house as well and caused injuries on his left arm and right shoulder. Petitioner Satpal stated to have given a datar blow from its reverse side on his back and the other unidentified person also inflicted injuries on his person. He raised noise, which attracted PW-2 Darshan Kumar at the spot. Therefore, all the petitioners accused decamped from the place of the occurrence. 2. Succinctly, according to the prosecution that on 9.8.2008, the petitioners-accused caused injuries to complainant-respondent No.2 with their respective weapons. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant-Gurbachan Chand, the present case was registered against the accused, vide FIR No.187 dated 12.08.2008 (Annexure P1), on CRM No.M-23405 of 2010 2 accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 323, 427, 452 and 506 read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Sadar Hoshiarpur. 3. During the pendency of investigation, good sense prevailed and the matter was compromised between the parties and they have settled all their disputes and decided to live peacefully. 4. In this manner, 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 executed the compromise deed (Annexure P2). In order to substantiate the validity of the compromise, the parties, vide their separately recorded statements, have stated that they have compromised the matter with the intervention of respectables of the village and prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings. As per compromise deed, the parties have resolved the controversy between them and the complainant is ready to make statement before the High Court that there is a compromise between them and do not want to pursue the FIR. 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 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 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. CRM No.M-23405 of 2010 3 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 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. 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 attracted in the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 9. As is evident from the record that in the instant case, as the parties have lawfully agreed to settle the dispute, 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, FIR No.187 dated 12.8.2010 (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and the petitioners-accused are discharged, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 22.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge