CRM No.M-27130 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-29.10.2010 Kuldeep Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Rajbir Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G., Punjab. Mr.Rajiv Joshi, Advocate for Mr.Amit Saini, Advocate for respondent No.2. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The conspectus of the facts, relevant for deciding the sole controversy involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that on 6.7.2008 at about 8.30 a.m., complainant Davinder Singh son of Pritam Singh (respondent No.2) was present inside his house. In the meantime, the petitioners- accused came there armed with Dattar and chain. Accused Narinder Singh raised a lalkara to teach the complainant a lesson for daily quarreling with them. He caught hold of his hair, while the remaining accused caused injuries to him. In all according to the prosecution that on the fateful day, petitioner-accused Narinder Singh caught hold of him, while the remaining accused caused injuries to the complainant with their respective weapons. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant Davinder Singh, the instant case was registered against the petitioners-accused, vide FIR No.160 dated 6.7.2008 (Annexure P1) on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 323, 324 and 452 read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Sadar Hoshiarpur, in the manner described here-in-above. 2. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report/challan against the petitioners-accused in the trial Court. Having CRM No.M-27130 of 2010 2 completed all the codal formalities, the trial Magistrate already framed the charges against the petitioners-accused. What is not disputed here is that during the course of trial, the good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their dispute and executed the compromise deed (Annexure P2). 3. In this manner, now the petitioners have directed the present petition for quashing the FIR (Annexure P1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise, invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia, pleading that the parties have compromised the matter without any pressure, by virtue of compromise deed (Annexure P2) and removed their misunderstanding. They have no grudge against each other. All the disputes have been resolved by them with the intervention of respectable persons. The complainant, who is present today in Court, has reiterated the factum of compromise and filed his affidavit, which is taken on record and marked as PX for ready reference. They have decided to live in peace. The complainant does not want to pursue the criminal case registered against the petitioners. He has no objection if the FIR is quashed. 4. Such thus being the position on record, now the short and significant 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? 5. 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 behalf. 6. 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 CRM No.M-27130 of 2010 3 case Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052. 7. 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 injury cases, on the basis of lawful settlement. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is fully attracted to the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 8. As is evident from the record that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and decided to live peacefully. The compromise is in their welfare and interest. Since the parties have lawfully agreed to settle the dispute, so, 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. 9. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No.160 dated 6.7.2008 (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and the petitioners are acquitted, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 29.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge