CRM No.M-11785 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-11785 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision:08.11.2010 Ashok Kumar and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.N.S.Swaitch, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1-State. Mr.Deepak Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The epitome of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the present petition, is that complainant-Virbac Animal Health India Pvt.Ltd.(respondent No.2) are the manufacturers of superior quality of cattle-feed. According to the prosecution, the petitioners-accused manufactured similar looking cattle-feed products of inferior quality and are selling the same in the market as a genuine products. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of complainant-respondent No.2, the present case was registered against the petitioners-accused, vide FIR No.90 dated 09.06.2007, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 34 IPC, Sections 102, 103 and 104 of the Trade Marka Act and Section 63 of the Copyright Act, by the police of Police Station City Khanna, District Ludhiana. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report/challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against the CRM No.M-11785 of 2010 2 petitioners-accused to face the trial for the indicated offences. 2. What is not disputed here is that during the pendency of the case, the good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled the dispute and entered into compromise vide compromise-deed(Annexure P-2), with the intervention of the common friends and respectable persons in this relevant connection. The petitioners and the complainant have now decided to live peacefully and harmoniously. 3. That being so, now the petitioners-accused have filed the present petition for quashing the FIR(Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings thereto, on the basis of compromise-deed(Annexure P-2), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter-alia, pleading that the complainant party has no grudge against the petitioners-accused as they have assured and undertook not to carry out or deal into any activity against the interest of the complainant party. They have removed their all ill-will against each other. The complainant party has decided to withdraw the pending cases against the petitioners-accused. Raman Talwar, Regional Business Manager of the complainant-Company is present in the Court, who has reiterated and maintained vide his separately recorded statement that the complainant-Company has settled all the disputes with the petitioners accused. He has no objection if the FIR and all other subsequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioners are quashed. 4. Such, thus, being the position on record, now the core question that arises for determination in this petition is as to whether the FIR deserves to be quashed in this respect or not? 5. Having regard to the rival contentions of 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. 6. The law of settlement of criminal disputes by virtue of compromise CRM No.M-11785 of 2010 3 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 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 attracted in the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 8. As is evident from the record that in the instant case, as the parties have lawfully agreed to settle the dispute vide compromise-deed(Annexure P-2), therefore, 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 as guaranteed by and as contemplated in the Constitution of India. 9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No.90 dated 09.06.2007(Annexure P-1) and all other CRM No.M-11785 of 2010 4 subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and the petitioners are discharged, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. December 08, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE CRM No.M-11785 of 2010 5