Crl. Misc. No. M-26636 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-26636 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 19.11.2010 Jagdeep Singh and others ...Petitioners versus The State of Punjab and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Aditya Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Chandu Majra, D.A.G., Punjab for respondent No. 1-State. Mr. Arun Luthra, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) The epitome of facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy raised in the present petition and emanating from the record, is that on 20.04.2009 complainant-Atinder Pal Singh (respondent No.2) and his friend Gurdeep Singh @ Mani (injured) were present in the market of Phase 9, Mohali. In the meantime, the petitioners-accused came in Indica car and forcibly dragged Gurdeep Singh @ Mani (injured) and gave beatings to him. However, the complainant escaped from the clutches of the petitioners-accused. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the complainant that all the accused have kidnapped Gurdeep Singh @ Mani (injured) and caused injuries to him. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of complainant-Atinder Pal Singh (respondent No.2), the present case was registered against the petitioners- accused, vide FIR No. 77 dated 20.04.2009 (Annexure P-1), on accusation of Crl. Misc. No. M-26636 of 2010 (O&M) -2- having committed the offences punishable under Sections 364, 148 and 149 IPC by the police of Police Station, Phase-8, Mohali, in the manner depicted here-in- above. 3. It is not a matter of dispute that during the course of investigation, good sense prevailed between the parties and they have compromised the matter. The complainant-Atinder Pal Singh and Gurdeep Singh @ Mani (injured) have filed their respective affidavits (Annexures P-2 & P-3), inter-alia, alleging that they have amicably compromised the matter with the petitioners-accused. 4. In this manner, now, the petitioners have filed the instant petition for quashing the FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising thereto, invoking the provision of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter-alia, pleading that they have amicably settled their disputes. They were friends prior to the present occurrence and now they have again become friends. They have no ill-will against each other. The complainant and the injured, who are today present in the Court, vide their separately recorded statements, maintained that the matter has been compromised between them and they have no objection, if the FIR lodged against the petitioners- accused is quashed. 5. Such, thus, being the position on record, now the sole question that arises for determination in this petition is as to whether the FIR deserves to be quashed in this respect or not? 6. 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 my mind, justice would be sub-served if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter in this relevant direction. 7. 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. Crl. Misc. No. M-26636 of 2010 (O&M) -3- 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. 8. The crux 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 such like cases, on the basis of lawful settlement. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is fully applicable in the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 9. As is evident from the record that in the instant case, as the parties have amicably settled their disputes, therefore, 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. 10. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No. 77 dated 20.04.2009 (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) November 19, 2010 Judge naresh.k