CRM No.M-31034 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 30.11.2010 Tarsem Kumar alias Pappu ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Vivek Salathia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Chandu Majra, D.A.G., Punjab. Mr.Vicky Mehra, Advocate for respondent No.2. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Tersenessly, the facts, relevant for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, are that on 25.9.2009, complainant Vijay Kumar (respondent No.2) came from Amritsar to Uttar Pradesh alongwith his brother Durgesh Kumar, where he was working for the last about ten years. He met with an accident and his brother Durgesh Kumar was left alone in the train. In the wake of search, the complainant came to know that petitioner accused Tarsem Kumar alias Pappu abducted his brother Durgesh Kumar and kept him as a slave to do labour work. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant Vijay Kumar (respondent No.2), the present case was registered against the petitioner-accused, vide FIR No.75 dated 25.9.2009 (Annexure P1) for the commission of offences punishable under sections 365, 367, 368 and 371 IPC, by the police of Police Station 'D' Division, Amritsar, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 2. After completion of investigation, the police submitted the challan/final report under section 173 Cr.PC against the petitioner-accused to face the trial for the aforesaid offences. CRM No.M-31034 of 2010 2 3. It is not a matter of dispute that during the pendency of the case, the good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their disputes, by virtue of compromise deed (Annexure P2). 4. In this manner, now the petitioner-accused has directed the instant petition for quashing the FIR (Annexure P1) on the basis of compromise, invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia, pleading that the parties have settled their disputes and compromised the matter, vide compromise deed (Annexure P2) with the intervention of respectables. The FIR was stated to have been registered by the complainant against the petitioner on account of some disputes with regard to payment of wages. Now, they have settled all their disputes and the misunderstanding between them has been cleared and solved. The complainant has no objection if the FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising thereto, against the petitioner are quashed. 5. Not only that, in pursuance of order of this Court, the Area Magistrate has submitted his report dated 27.11.2010, wherein after recording the statements of the parties, it was concluded that complainant Vijay Kumar entered into compromise with the petitioner without any threat or force. 6. Such thus 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 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 connection. 8. What is not disputed here is 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 regard was transformed in reality by Hon'ble Apex Court in cases Manoj Sharma v. State & Ors. 2008(4) RCR CRM No.M-31034 of 2010 3 (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 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 attracted in 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 since the parties have amicably settled their disputes, so, the compromise is in their welfare and interest. Thus, 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. 11. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No.75 dated 25.9.2009 (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereto are quashed and the petitioner-accused is discharged from the indicated case, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 30.11.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge