CRM No.M-25655 & 30459 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CRM No.M-25655 of 2010 Hakam Chand & others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents 2. CRM No.M-30459 of 2010 Bhola Singh & another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents Date of Decision:- 27.10.2010 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Paramjit Singh Jammu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G., Punjab. Mr.Amandeep Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) As identical questions of law and facts are involved in the aforesaid two petitions, arising out of the same case/FIR, therefore, I propose to decide the same, vide this common order, in order to avoid the repetition of the facts. However, for facilitation, the facts have been extracted from CRM No.M-25655 of 2010. 2. The compendium of the facts, which need a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy raised in the instant petitions and emanating from the record, is that the watercourse for irrigating the agricultural land of complainant Bhola Singh (respondent No.2) passed through the fields of CRM No.M-25655 & 30459 of 2010 2 petitioners Hakam Chand and others. They dismantled the same by ploughing the fields. Baldev Singh, the elder brother of the complainant lodged a protest with them in this behalf. Thereafter, petitioner Hakam Chand misbehaved with him. This was the motive alleged by the prosecution for commission of offences against the petitioners. According to the prosecution that on the intervening night of 7/8.7.2010 at about 12.30 A.M., the petitioners-accused armed with sword, gandasa and gun entered the house of the complainant. They raised lalkaras. Petitioner-accused Sukhdev Raj was stated to have inflicted sword blow on the head of the complainant. Simultaneously, Jagdish Chand gave a gandasa blow, which landed on his head. The complainant felled on the ground. As soon as, PW Baldev Singh came to rescue him (complainant) from the clutches of the petitioners-accused, in the meantime, petitioner Hakam Chand gave a sword blow, which hit on the finger of his left hand. Jagdish Chand repeated the injuries on the left shoulder of Baldev Singh. They raised noise. The people residing in the surrounding vicinity came there and saved them from the clutches of the accused. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the prosecution that all the petitioners-accused caused injuries to the complainant and his brother Baldev Singh PW with their respective weapons. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant Bhola Singh (respondent No.2), the present case was registered against the petitioners-accused, vide FIR No.124 dated 9.7.2010 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 323, 324, 326 and 452 IPC, by the police of Police Station Sadar Jalalabad, District Ferozepur. 4. The case of the prosecution further proceeds that during the course of the occurrence, the complainant party also caused injuries to the accused party i.e. Hakam Chand and Sukhdev Raj. Petitioner Hakam Chand stated his version in his statement (Annexure P2), on the basis of which, a cross case was also registered CRM No.M-25655 & 30459 of 2010 3 against the complainant party i.e. Bhola Singh complainant and his brother Baldev Singh PW. 5. During the course of investigation, the good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their disputes, by virtue of compromise deed (Annexure P3). 6. That being so, now the petitioners-accused and complainant party have filed the present petitions for quashing their respective cross cases registered against each other on the basis of compromise, invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia, pleading that they have settled all their disputes at the instance of the respectables of the village. They have decided to live peacefully in the village and undertook to cancel the cross cases registered against each other. The parties have maintained and reiterated the factum of compromise (Annexure P3), vide their separately recorded statements. 7. 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? 8. 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 context. 9. 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. 10. The epitome of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is that CRM No.M-25655 & 30459 of 2010 4 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 such injury cases, 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. Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that the parties have compromised the matter. Their land adjoins the land of each other. They belong to the same village and the compromise would be in their welfare and interest. Moreover, the incident originated at the spur of moment, owing to the demolition of watercourse. 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. 12. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petitions are hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No.124 dated 9.7.2010 as well as cross version (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and the petitioners-accused in both the cases are discharged, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 27.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge