CRM No.M-8782 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-28.10.2010 Salim Mohd and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.J.S.Uppal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, DAG Punjab. Mr.Brijesh K.Sharma Advocate respondent No.2. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The crux of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present petition and emanating from the record, is that on 28.2.2010 the petitioners-accused came at the spot armed with Sotis and dandas. They raised lalkaras and threatened complainant Taj Mohd. son of Ibrahim (respondent No.2) with dire consequences to teach him a lesson for objecting them to play the tape recorder in the loud voice. They started causing injuries to him, Sharif Mohd and Gurpreet Singh Pws with their respective weapons. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the complainant that all the petitioners-accused caused injuries to the complainant party with their respective weapons. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant Taj Mohd., the present case was registered against the petitioners-accused, vide FIR No.21 dated 1.3.2010 (Annexure P1) on accusation of having committed the offences CRM No.M-8782 of 2010 2 punishable under sections 148, 323, 452 and 506 read with section 149 IPC by the police of Police Station Ahemadgarh, Distt.Sangrur, in the manner described here- in-above. 3. What is not disputed here is that during the course of investigation, the good sense prevailed and the parties have compromised the matter at the intervention of panchayat and respectables of the village, vide panchayati compromise deed (Annexure P2). The complainant has also filed his affidavit (Annexure P3) in this respect. 4. That being so, now the petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing the FIR (Annexure P1) 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 panchayati compromise (Annexure P2). The complainant does not want to pursue the criminal case. He has also reiterated the factum of compromise in his affidavit (Annexure P3). 5. In pursuance of the order dated 30.8.2010 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this court (Gurdev Singh, J.), the trial Magistrate has submitted his report, the relevant portion of which is to the following effect:- “It is to respectfully submit that statements of complainant Taj Mohd son of Ibrahim and injured Sharif Mohd son of Qiam Din and Gurpreet Singh son of Dilraj Singh have been recorded in the Court. The complainant and injured have also stated that they have compromised the matter and complainant does not wish to pursue the matter any further and he has no objection, if proceedings arising out of the said FIR are quashed. The compromise seems to be is voluntary in nature no induced any threat or coercion or any undue influence or any inducement. Statement recorded in the Court is hereby appended in original as Appendix-A comprising of 3 pages.” 6. 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 CRM No.M-8782 of 2010 3 interest of justice to quash the criminal prosecution or not? 7. 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. 8. 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 context 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. 9. 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 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 injury 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. 10. As is evident from the record that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and decided to live peacefully. The compromise is in their welfare CRM No.M-8782 of 2010 4 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. 11. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No.21 dated 1.3.2010 (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and the petitioners are discharged, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 28.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge