CRM No.M-27761 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-26.11.2010 Ajmer Singh & others ...Petitioners Versus Som Nath ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Rajiv Kumar Trikha, Advocate for the respondent. --- M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The crux of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that complainant-respondent Som Nath was the owner of the land in dispute. The petitioners-accused were stated to have hatched a criminal conspiracy to usurp his land and got the entries in Khasra Girdawari changed in their name. On the basis of false and forged revenue record, the petitioners-accused filed two pre-emption suits against the complainant. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the prosecution that the accused hatched a criminal conspiracy, committed forgery in the revenue record, in order to cause loss to the complainant and to usurp his land in question. The matter was reported to the police, but since the police did not take any action, so the respondent-complainant filed private complaint (Annexure P1) against the petitioners-accused and their co- accused Raj Kumar (since deceased) for taking cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 218, 465, 466, 467 and 471 read with section 120-B IPC, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 3. After taking into consideration the preliminary evidence, the trial CRM No.M-27761 of 2010 2 Magistrate summoned the petitioners-accused to face the trial for the commission of the aforesaid offences. 4. Having completed all the codal formalities, the petitioners-accused were accordingly charge sheeted and the case was slated for evidence of the complainant. 5. What is not disputed here is that during the pendency of the complaint, the good sense prevailed and the matter was compromised between the parties. They have amicably settled their disputes and decided to live peacefully. The complainant has filed an affidavit (Annexure P2) in this respect. 6. In this manner, now the petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing the complaint (Annexure P1) and all subsequent proceedings arising thereto on the basis of compromise, invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia, pleading that the parties have amicably settled their disputes. The complainant has filed an affidavit (Annexure P2), wherein, he has stated that after the death of Raj Kumar accused, he has compromised the matter with the petitioners remaining accused. He does not want to pursue the complaint. He has no objection if the complaint and all subsequent proceedings filed by him against the petitioners are quashed. Complainant Som Nath, who is today present in the Court, vide his separately recorded statement, maintained the factum of compromise. 7. 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? 8. 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. 9. The law of settlement of criminal disputes by virtue of compromise CRM No.M-27761 of 2010 3 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. 10. 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 fully attracted in the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 11. As is evident from the record that since the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the compromise is in their welfare and interest, 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. 12. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, the complaint (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent CRM No.M-27761 of 2010 4 proceedings arising thereto are quashed and the petitioners are acquitted, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 26.11.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge