Crl. Misc. No. M-29131 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 08.12.2010 Chanan Singh and another ...Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.I.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.S.S. Chandu Majra, D.A.G., Punjab. Mr.I.S. Mann, Advocate for respondent No.2. M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) Concisely, the prosecution claimed that on 07.09.2010 at about 8.15 P.M., complainant-Manjit Kaur (respondent No.2) was present along with her husband in the house. In the meantime, petitioner-accused Chanan Singh armed with iron rod and Hartek Singh armed with dang came there and forcibly entered her house. They caused injuries to complainant, her husband Dalip Singh and daughter Sukhvir Kaur, with their respective weapons. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the complainant that on 07.09.2010, the petitioners- accused caused injuries to the complainant, her husband and daughter with their respective weapons. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant-Manjit Kaur (respondent No.2), the present case was registered against the petitioners-accused, vide FIR No.37 dated 07.09.2010 (Annexure P-1), for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 452 and 323 read with 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Samalsar, District Moga, in the manner indicated herein above. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the challan/final police report against the petitioners-accused to Crl. Misc. No. M-29131 of 2010 2 face the trial for the indicated offences. 3. What is not disputed here is that during the pendency of the case, good sense prevailed between the parties. They have amicably settled their disputes and entered into a compromise deed dated 24.09.2010 (Annexure P-2) in this context. 4. In this manner, now the petitioners-accused has instituted the instant petition for quashing the FIR 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) at the instance of respectables of the village and Panchayat. They have no grudge against each other. The matter was compromised keeping in view the interest of the parties and without any pressure. As per the compromise, the complainant has no objection, if the FIR (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings thereto, initiated against the petitioners-accused are quashed. 5. The complainant-Manjit Kaur, her husband Dalip Singh and daughter Sukhbir Kaur have filed their respective affidavits reiterating the factum of compromise (Annexure P-2). 6. Not only that, in pursuance of the order of this Court, the trial Court after recording the statements of all the concerned parties has submitted his report dated 01.12.2010, the operative part of which is as under: “In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that on 30.11.2010, complainant Manjit Kaur w/o Dalip Singh R/o V. Sekha Kalan, Distt. Moga, and Miss. Sukhvir Kaur, injured, appeared and made statement. Complainant Manjit Kaur stated that she had lodged FIR No. 37 of 07.09.2010 U/S 452/325/323/34 IPC P.S. Samslar, against accused Chanan Singh s/o Hartek Singh and Hartek Singh s/o Lal Singh Rs/o V. Sekha Kalan, Distt. Moga, and that due to intervention of respectables of their village, compromise has been effected between her and accused persons and now she does not want to pursue the present case. She further made statement that she has no objection if the present FIR/case is quashed and accused persons Crl. Misc. No. M-29131 of 2010 3 are acquitted and that compromise has been effected without any pressure or coercion. Similar statement has been made by miss Sukhvir Kaur injured. On the other hand, both the above named accused made statement that above mentioned FIR was lodged against them and now with the intervention of respectables of their village, compromise has been effected between them and complainant Manjit Kaur. In view of statement of the parties, in view of statement of both the parties, I observe that compromise arrived at between the parties is correct and genuine one.” 9. Such thus being the position on record, now the short and significant question that arises for determination in this petition is as to whether the FIR deserves to be quashed in this respect or not? 10. 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. 11. It is not a matter of dispute 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. 12. The epitome 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-29131 of 2010 4 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 applicable in the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 13. As is evident from the record that in the instant case, since the parties have amicably settled their disputes, so, 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. 14. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No.37 dated 07.09.2010 (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) December 08, 2010 Judge AS