Crl. Misc. No. M-22987 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-22987 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 22.11.2010 Farooq and others ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Anil Kumar Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jaspreet Singh, A.A.G., Punjab. Mr. Jashanjot Uppal, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) The epitome 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 27.07.2010 complainant-Abdul Gaffar (respondent No.2) and his brother Abdul Sattar were going on their scooter. As soon as, they reached near Chauhatta Chowk Pipal Maler Kotla, in the meantime, all the petitioners-accused armed with iron rods came there and attacked him (complainant). 2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the prosecution that on 27.07.2010, all the accused caused injuries to complainant with their respective weapons. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of complainant-Abdul Gaffar (respondent No.2), the present case was registered against the accused, vide FIR No.119 dated 27.07.2010 (Annexure P-1), for the commission of offences Crl. Misc. No. M-22987 of 2010 (O&M) -2- punishable under Sections 341, 323, 506 and 34 IPC by the police of Police Station, Malerkotla, District Sangrur, in the manner depicted here-in-above. 3. It is not a matter of dispute that during the course of investigation, good sense prevailed between the parties and they have settled their disputes and entered into compromise, vide compromise deed (Annexure P-2). The complainant has also filed his affidavit (Annexure P-3) in this respect. 4. In this manner, now, the petitioners-accused have directed the instant petition for quashing the FIR (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter-alia, pleading that they have amicably settled their disputes, vide compromise deed (Annexure P-2) with the intervention of the respectable persons and relatives. They are no longer interested in pursuing the case. They have no grudge with each other. They want to live in peace. All the misunderstandings have been resolved between them. They are willing to maintain cordial relations with each other. Annexure P-3 is the affidavit of complainant, reiterating the factum of the compromise. Complainant-Abdul Guffar (respondent No.2), who is today present in the Court, vide his separately recorded statement, maintained that the matter has been compromised between them, vide compromise (Annexure P-3) and he has no objection, if the FIR lodged against the petitioners-accused is quashed. 5. Above being the position on record, now the sole question that arises for determination in this petition is as to whether the FIR deserves to be quashed in this respect or not? 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to me, justice would be sub-served if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter in this relevant direction. Crl. Misc. No. M-22987 of 2010 (O&M) -3- 7. What is not disputed here is that 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 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.P.C. 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 like cases, on the basis of lawful settlement. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is fully attracted to 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 amicably settled their disputes, therefore, the compromise is in their welfare and interest. Thus, to me, 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. Crl. Misc. No. M-22987 of 2010 (O&M) -4- 10. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No. 119 dated 27.07.2010 (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and the petitioners are discharged, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) November 22, 2010 Judge naresh.k