CRM No.M-29281 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-15.10.2010 Surjit Singh alias Gopi & another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G Punjab. Mr.Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The symposium of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the present petition, is that on 16.3.2010 at about 9.30 P.M., complainant Harwant Singh (respondent No.2) was present in his house. Petitioner-accused Surjit Singh alias Gopi armed with Kirpan and Manjit Singh alias Jeet armed with Hockey entered his house after scaling over the wall. Petitioner Manjit Singh raised a lalkara to teach him a lesson for selling the land. Thereafter, petitioner Surjit Singh gave him Kirpan blows, which hit on his forehead, chin, left ear and finger. Then, accused Manjit Singh gave a hockey blow on the left side of his neck. Thereafter, Surjit Kaur wife of the complainant intervened. Accused Surjit Singh attacked her as well and caused injuries with his Kirpan on her head and back. They raised noise, which attracted PW Jagir Singh son of Parkash Singh. In the meantime, the accused fled away from the place of occurrence with their respective weapons. 2. Concisely, according to the prosecution that on 16.3.2010 at about CRM No.M-29281 of 2010 2 9.30 P.M., the petitioners-accused caused injuries to the complainant and his wife Surjit Kaur with their respective weapons. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of complainant Harwant Singh, the present case was registered against the accused, vide FIR No.26 dated 9.4.2010 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 323, 324, 325, 326 and 452 read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Ramdas, Distt.Amritsar. 3. After the completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report under section 173 Cr.PC/challan against the petitioners in the trial Court. 4. What is not disputed here is that during the pendency of the case, the good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their disputes by mutual consent with the intervention of respectables. 5. In this manner, 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 mutually compromised the matter with the intervention of respectables. They want to live in peace. They have removed all ill- wills against each other. The complainant and injured PW are present in Court today and they have filed their affidavits, in which, they have reiterated that they do not want to prosecute the petitioners-accused in the present case. They have acknowledged the correctness of earlier compromise/affidavits dated 15.9.2010 (Annexures P2 and P3). 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 interest of justice to quash the criminal prosecution or not? 7. Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal CRM No.M-29281 of 2010 3 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. 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 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. 9. 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 injury cases, on the basis of lawful settlement. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is fully attracted in the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 10. 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. CRM No.M-29281 of 2010 4 11. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No.26 dated 9.4.2010 (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and the petitioners are discharged, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 15.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge