CRM No.M-6583 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-28.9.2010 Amit Sharma ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Ankur Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, DAG Punjab. Mr.G.P.S.Bal, Advocate for respondent No.2. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The conspectus of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that on 13.8.2007, petitioner-accused Amit Sharma met the complainant Sohan Lal (respondent No.2) at bus stand, Balachaur and asked him to bring the passport and Rs.1 lac for sending his son to Polland. The complainant came there alongwith the passport and Rs.1 lac with his friend Mohan Singh Ex-Sarpanch, Garhi Kanungo and gave the same to the petitioner- accused. Thereafter, the complainant also paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to him (petitioner). The petitioner told the complainant that he will have to pay Rs.3,50,000/-, but the complainant could not arrange the balance amount in this context. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations, in all, according to the prosecution that the petitioner neither sent the son of the complainant to Polland nor returned the amount to him. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioner, vide FIR No.118 dated 15.12.2009 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 406 and 420 IPC by the police of Police Station Balachaur, Distt.Shahibzada Bhagat Singh Nagar, in the CRM No.M-6583 of 2010 (O&M) 2 manner described here-in-above. 3. After completion of the investigation, the good sense prevailed and the matter was compromised between the parties. 4. In this manner, the petitioner has now claimed that the FIR (Annexure P1) and all subsequent proceedings thereto be quashed, on the basis of compromise, inter-alia, pleading that as the complainant received the entire money from him, therefore, they do not want to prolong the litigation. In order to substantiate the validity of the compromise, the complainant filed his affidavit (Annexure P2) in this regard. 5. Such thus 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 connection. 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- CRM No.M-6583 of 2010 (O&M) 3 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. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is fully applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that as the parties have already compromised the matter, 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. 9. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, the FIR (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and the petitioner-accused is discharged, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 28.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge