CRM No.M-27763 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-28.10.2010 Gurpal Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.S.S.Tiwana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G., Punjab. Mr.Karan Pathak, Advocate for respondent No.2. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The compendium of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the core controversy raised in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that petitioner-accused Gurpal Singh has prepared the false and fabricated receipts as loan advance to complainant Gurcharan Singh (respondent No.2) for a total sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. On the basis of forged receipts, he has filed a civil suit for a decree of recovery of this amount alongwith interest against the complainant. According to the complainant that he never took loan from the petitioner-accused and the receipts prepared by him in this respect are forged and fabricated. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of complainant-respondent No.2, the present case was registered against the petitioner-accused, vide FIR No.12 dated 6.6.2002 (Annexure P1) on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC by the police of Police Station Khamano, Distt.Fatehgarh Sahib, in the manner described here-in-above. CRM No.M-27763 of 2010 2 2. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report/challan against the petitioner-accused in the Court of trial Magistrate. It is not a matter of dispute that during the pendency of the case, the good sense prevailed and the parties have compromised the matter, vide compromise deed (Annexure P2). What is not disputed here is that the petitioner-accused has already withdrawn the civil suit for recovery filed against the complainant. 3. In this manner, now the petitioner has 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 amicably settled the matter at the intervention of respectable persons, vide compromise deed (Annexure P2). The complainant does not want to pursue the criminal case registered against the petitioner. He has no objection if the FIR is quashed. 4 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? 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. The epitome of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is that CRM No.M-27763 of 2010 3 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 cheating 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. 8. As is evident from the record that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the petitioner has already withdrawn the civil suit for recovery filed against the complainant. The compromise is in their welfare 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. 9. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No.12 dated 6.6.2002 (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and the petitioner is discharged, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 28.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge