CRM No.M-9894 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-28.10.2010 Krishan Baldev and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Brijeshwar Singh Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, DAG Punjab. Mr.I.S.Sidhu, Advocate respondent Nos.2 and 3. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The conspectus of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the core controversy involved in the present petition and emanating from the record, is that the Punjab Markfed supplied the paddy to M/s Guru Nanak Rice Mills, being run by the petitioners for shelling. According to the prosecution that they did not supply the required quantity of rice after shelling the paddy to the Punjab Markfed and thus there was a shortage of 13291 bags weighing 8639.15 quintals, valuing Rs.57,41,339/-. In this manner, the prosecution claimed that the petitioners have mis-appropriated the rice of the aforesaid amount. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of complainant- respondent No.3, the present case was registered against the petitioners-accused, vide FIR No.75 dated 24.6.2002 on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 406, 409 and 420 IPC by the police of Police Station City Malout, Distt.Muktsar, in the manner described here-in-above. 2. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final CRM No.M-9894 of 2010 2 police report/challan against the petitioners-accused in the Court of trial Magistrate. The charges were framed against them. It is not a matter of dispute that during the pendency of the case, the good sense prevailed and the parties have compromised the matter. The petitioners-accused have already deposited the entire amount and the Punjab Markfed has decided to withdraw the instant criminal case registered against them, vide resolution/compromise deed (Annexure P1). In order to buttress the factum of compromise, Harpinder Singh Dhaliwal, Distt.Manager, Markfed (respondent No.3) has filed an affidavit in this respect, which is taken on record and marked as PX. 3. In this manner, now the petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing the FIR 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, by virtue of resolution/compromise (Annexure P1), the relevant portion of which is as under:- “That the Sub-committee of the Board of Directors of MARKFED in its meeting held on 23.09.2009 has approved to settle the cases of M/s Guru Nanak Rice Mills (of which the present petitioners are partners) of paddy crop year 1999-2000 by accepting an amount of Rs.175500/- as full and final settlement and after the approval of the M.D. MARKFED. That as the petitioners have deposited the aforementioned amount of full and final settlement of their case relating to paddy crop 1999- 2000, the M.D., MARKFED vide order dated 01.06.2010 has granted approval to withdraw all the cases against M/s Guru Nanak Rice Mills, Malout relatint to paddy crop year 1999-2000 and has authorized the deponent who is presently serving as District Manager, MARKFED, Muktsar, to withdraw the cases against the present petitioners pertaining to the paddy crop year 1999-2000. That in view of the aforementioned averments, the deponent has no objection if the above said FIR against the petitioners and all other proceeding arising therefrom are quashed. That the deponent does not want to pursue the above said FIR because of the settlement arrived at between the parties.” 4 Such thus being the position on record, now the sole question that CRM No.M-9894 of 2010 3 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? 5. 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 behalf. 6. 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 regard 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. 7. The symposium 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 mis-appropriation and cheating 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. 8. As is evident from the record that the parties have amicably settled CRM No.M-9894 of 2010 4 their disputes and the petitioners have deposited the impugned amount. The Punjab Markfed has decided to withdraw the instant criminal case registered against them, vide resolution/compromise deed (Annexure P1). The compromise is in their welfare and interest. 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. 9. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No.75 dated 24.6.2002 and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and the petitioners are acquitted, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 28.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge