CRM No.M-13237 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-24.9.2010 Makhan Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, DAG Punjab. Mr.G.S.Rawat, Advocate for respondent No.2. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The conspectus of the facts, which need a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant petition filed by Makhan Singh petitioner and emanating from the record, is that originally, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner and his other co-accused on the statement of complainant Amarjit Singh (respondent No.2). The prosecution claimed that the accused were running a finance company by the name of Peppi Deposits and Investments Private Limited, in which, the complainant had invested Rs.5000/- with the hope to earn the amount of Rs.1.5 lac. The company was stated to have cheated him and not returned the amount to the complainant, which necessitated him to lodge the FIR. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations, in all, according to the complainant that the accused cheated him and mis-appropriated the amount deposited by him. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioner-accused and his other co-accused, vide FIR No.56 dated 4.6.1990 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 406 and 420 IPC by the police of Police Station Goraya, Distt.Jalandhar. 3. During the pendency of the case, the matter was compromised CRM No.M-13237 of 2010 2 between the parties and Sikatar Singh and Paramjit Kaur, the co-accused of the petitioner, filed a petition (CRM No.M-9294 of 2008) for quashing of the same FIR and all other subsequent proceedings on the basis of compromise. While quashing the same, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Harbans Lal, J.) passed the following order on 28.4.2008:- “This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the FIR No.56 dated 4.6.1990 (Annexure P1), registered under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Guraya, District Jalandhar and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the ground of compromise (Annexure P-2). The grounds pleaded are that the parties have compromised the matter with the intervention of the respectables, therefore no useful purpose would be served if the proceedings are allowed to continue. A compromise deed dated 15.2.2008 (Annexure P-2) has been executed between the parties wherein the complainant has stated that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. Ms.JJ Kaur, Advocate representing respondent No.2-complainant has also stated that the complainant has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. In view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in re:Kulwinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another 2007(3) Recent Criminal Reports (Crl.) 1052, the Court is competent to quash the proceedings on the basis of compromise. Sequelly, this petition is accepted and FIR No.56 dated 4.6.1990 (Annexure P1), registered under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Guraya, District Jalandhar and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.” 4. Now, present petitioner Makhan Singh has also directed the present petition for quashing the FIR (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto on the basis of compromise, invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC, CRM No.M-13237 of 2010 3 inter-alia pleading that he has already settled the matter with the complainant and otherwise, he was not in any way related or connected with the affairs of the company and he has been falsely implicated. 5. The complainant-respondent No.2 filed his affidavit, in which, he has reiterated that the matter has been compromised between the parties with the intervention of respectables and family members. As per affidavit of the complainant, the parties are not willing to agitate the issue further and are ready to finish all their differences. The compromise has been executed without any kind of pressure, force and undue coercion by the petitioner and the complainant is not interested in pursuing the case and stated that he has no objection if the FIR is quashed. 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 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 CRM No.M-13237 of 2010 4 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 applicable to the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 10. As is evident from the record that in the instant case, the parties have lawfully agreed to settle the dispute. As mentioned above, the FIR has already been quashed by this Court on the basis of compromise pertaining to other co- accused of the petitioner. 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. 11. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No.56 dated 4.6.1990 (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed as well and the petitioner is discharged, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 24.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge