Crl. Misc. No. M-31186 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 01.12.2010 Karnail Singh and another ...Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Narinder Lucky, Advocate for Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Chandu Majra, D.A.G., Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. A.R. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) The matrix of the facts, relevant for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that on 07.09.2010 at 8.15 P.M., complainant-Prince (respondent No.2) was going in his car. As soon as, he reached near Baba Udo Temple (Mandir), in the meantime, petitioners-accused came there and pulled him out of his car. Petitioner- accused Jaswinder Singh was stated to have caused injuries to him on the head with the rod, while petitioner-accused Karnail Singh gave dang blow on his right arm. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the prosecution that on 07.09.2010 at 8.15 P.M petitioners-accused inflicted injuries to the complainant with their respective weapons. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant Prince (respondent No.2), the present case was registered against the petitioners-accused, vide FIR No.80 dated 09.09.2010 (Annexure P-1), for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 427 read with Crl. Misc. No. M-31186 of 2010 2 Section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Nangal, District Rupnagar, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 3. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the challan/final police report against the petitioners-accused to face the trial for the above indicated offences. 4. It is not a matter of dispute that during the pendency of the case, good sense prevailed between the parties and they have amicably settled their disputes, vide compromise deed dated 20.09.2010 (Annexure P-2). 5. In this manner, now the petitioners-accused have filed the instant petition for quashing the FIR (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter-alia, pleading that the parties have amicably settled their disputes, vide compromise deed (Annexure P-2) at the instance of respectables. They have settled all their disputes to maintain peace. The complainant (respondent No.2) has no objection, if the FIR and all subsequent proceedings, arising thereto, against the petitioners- accused are quashed. 6. Not only that, in pursuance of order of this Court, the area Magistrate has submitted his report dated 27.11.2010, the operative part of which is as under: “I have gone through the statement of complainant/sole injured Prince as well as of one of the appearing accused Karnail Singh. It is submitted that in the present case, the offences are compoundable and that, as per submission made by complainant Prince, the matter has been compromised between the parties and that they have no grudge against each other. Accordingly, it is hereby submitted that compromise has been validity arrived into between the parties.” 7. 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? 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter Crl. Misc. No. M-31186 of 2010 3 deeply, to my mind, justice would be sub-served if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter in this relevant direction. 9. It is not a matter of dispute that 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. 10. 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 attracted in the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 11. 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. Crl. Misc. No. M-31186 of 2010 4 12. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No.80 dated 09.09.2010 (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and the petitioners-accused are discharged, from the indicated case in the obtaining circumstances of the case. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) December 01, 2010 Judge AS