CRM No.M-30359 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 23.09.2010 Tarlok Singh and others ....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Surinder Thakur, Advocate for Mr.D.S. Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G., Punjab for respondents-State. Mr. Vikramjit Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The compendium of the facts relevant for disposal of present petition and emanating from record is that in the year 1987 accused-petitioner Tarlok Singh in connivance with other co-accused namely Dilbag Singh, Karnail Singh and Arjan Singh have forged the birth certificate/entry contained in the register of the village chowkidar pertaining to the birth certificate of Jasneet Kaur and used it as a genuine while furnishing the wrong particulars to the police authorities with the intention to commit fraud and thus cheated the complainant in this respect. 2. Concisely, according to the prosecution that the petitioners-accused have forged the above indicated document and gave wrong particulars to the police and hence cheated the complainant. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of respondent No.2, the present case was registered against the accused, vide FIR No.22 dated 22.02.2007, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 465, 467, 471 and 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station Dasuya, Distt. Hoshiarpur. 3. Having completed all the codal formalities the trial Magistrate CRM No.M-30359 of 2008 2 framed the charges against the accused for the aforesaid offences and now the case is fixed for prosecution evidence. 4. During the course of pendency of the case, good sense prevailed and the parties have compromised the matter. 5. A Co-ordinate bench of this Court (Ranjit Singh, J.) while issuing notice of motion passed the following order on 19.11.2008: - “This is an unfortunate case where the petitioners are found saddled with criminal liability, though the complainant's family in this case had enticed away a minor daughter of petitioner No.1. The petitioners had lodged FIR in this regard, which was cancelled and rather case was registered against them for producing a forged date of birth certificate of the girl. The certificate was issued by a school and this was registered without checking the record of the school. This case would reflect insensitivity of the police. A person, who is a victim as his daughter was enticed away, but is being made to face prosecution. This primarily has happened due to role of D.S.P. (D), Hoshiarpur, who is alleged to have acted in this manner on some consideration may be extraneous one. Prayer is now for quashing of this FIR.” 6. Again in pursuance of the order dated 22.2.2010, trial Magistrate recorded the statement of complainant-Daljit Singh (Annexure PX) on 20.04.2010, wherein, he has reiterated that the matter has been compromised between the parties. The perusal of the record would reveal that respondent No.2 has compromised the matter and he does not wish to continue the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. 7. Above being the position on record, now the short and significant question that arises for determination in this petition is as to whether it would be CRM No.M-30359 of 2008 3 expedient in the interest of justice to quash the criminal prosecution or not? 8. 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 direction. 9. The law of settlement of criminal disputes by virtue of compromise is not resintegra 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. 10 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 everlasting 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 matrimonial and property disputes, 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. 11. As is evident from the record that in the instant case, since the parties CRM No.M-30359 of 2008 4 are 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. 12. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No.22 dated 22.02.2010 (Annexure P5) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and all the accused are discharged, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge September 23, 2010 AS