CRM No.M-14706 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-8.10.2010 Rakesh Kumar alias Jangi ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.L.M.Gulati, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G Punjab. Mr.Gurmeet Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The compendium of the facts, which need a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved the present petition and emanating from the record, is that on 30.8.2009 at 2.30 P.M. Narinder Bala complainant (since deceased) alongwith her family members was present in the house. Petitioner-accused Rakesh Kumar alias Jangi came along with 5/6 other persons, they opened the gate and entered the house. The petitioner threatened her to vacate the house in dispute. He also threatened her with dire consequences. She raised noise. Thereafter, the accused decamped from the place of occurrence, but no injury was caused to anybody. 2. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant, the present case was registered against the indicated accused, vide FIR No.348 dated 30.8.2009 (Annexure P1) on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 452 and 506 IPC and sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act by the police of Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar. 3. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the challan/final police report under section 173 Cr.PC against the accused to face trial for the above indicated offences before the trial court. CRM No.M-14706 of 2010 2 4. What is not disputed before me is that during the pendency of the trial, the good sense prevailed and the matter was compromised between the parties at the intervention of respectables and relatives. They have settled all their disputes and decided to live peacefully. 5. In this manner, now the petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the FIR (Annexure P1) and all subsequent proceedings thereto on the basis of compromise, invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia, pleading that the parties have compromised the matter. In order to substantiate the validity of the compromise, the legal representative of the complainant-deceased, vide his separately recorded statement has stated that they have compromised the matter with the intervention of respectables and relations and prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings. As per his affidavit (Annexure C1), the parties have resolved the controversy between them and maintained that the FIR came into being due to some misunderstandings and number of criminal as well as civil disputes have arisen between them. They suffered a loss due to said dispute. They have amicably settled their dispute. The LR of complainant 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 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 respect 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. CRM No.M-14706 of 2010 3 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 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. 10. As the parties have lawfully agreed to settle the dispute, 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.348 dated 30.8.2009 (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and the petitioner is discharged, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 8.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge