CRM No.M-31260 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 30.11.2010 Kamal Singh & others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.C.L.Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Chandu Majra, D.A.G., Punjab. Ms.Rrahish Pahwa Dudeja, Advocate for respondent No.2. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The compendium of the facts, relevant for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy raised in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that on 21.9.2010, petitioner-accused Jeeta Singh called complainant Narinder Singh (respondent No.2) at the spot, where remaining petitioners-accused were already present. They started causing injuries to him with their respective weapons. He raised noise and then all the accused decamped from the place of occurrence with their respective weapons. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the complainant that on 21.9.2010, the petitioners- accused inflicted injuries to him with their respective weapons. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of complainant Narinder Singh (respondent No.2), the present case was registered against the petitioners-accused, vide FIR No.102 dated 26.9.2010 (Annexure P1) for the commission of offences punishable under sections 148, 308 and 325 read with section 149 IPC, by the police of Police Station Sudhar, District Ludhiana. 3. It is not a matter of dispute that during the pendency of the CRM No.M-31260 of 2010 2 investigation, the good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their disputes, by virtue of compromise deed (Annexure P2). The complainant has filed his affidavit (Annexure P3) in this respect. 4. That being so, now the petitioners-accused have instituted 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 they have settled all their disputes at the instance of the respectables and without any fear and pressure. The complainant does not want to take legal action against the petitioners. No grudge remains between the parties and they want to live in peace. The affidavit (Annexure P3) of the complainant is also to that effect. 5. Not only that, in pursuance of order of this Court, the Area Magistrate has submitted his report dated 17.11.2010, wherein after recording the statements of the parties, it was concluded that they have voluntarily entered into compromise. 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 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 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 regard 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. CRM No.M-31260 of 2010 3 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 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 since the parties have amicably settled their disputes, so, 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 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.102 dated 26.9.2010 (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereto are quashed and the petitioners-accused are discharged, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 30.11.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge