IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-26526 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.11.2010 Rajesh Chawla ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Chandu Majra, D.A.G., Punjab for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Ms. Gursharan K. Mann, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) The epitome of 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 in the wake of complaint of complainant- Ashwani Sharma (respondent No.3), the present case was registered against the petitioner-accused, vide FIR No.306 dated 19.07.2010 (Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 336 & 287 IPC, by the police of Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar. 2. What is not disputed here is that during the course of investigation, the good sense prevailed between the parties and they have amicably settled their disputes, vide compromise deed (Annexure P-2). As per terms of the compromise, petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.54,000/- to the complainant, who has returned the treadmill (exercise cycle) to him. 3. In this manner, now the petitioner-accused has filed the instant petition for quashing the FIR (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provision of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter alia, pleading that the parties have amicably settled the disputes. None of the parties shall file any litigation against each other, in any Court of law or before any forum or institution. Complainant-Ashwani Sharma (respondent No.3), who is today present in the Court, has reiterated that he has compromised the matter with the petitioner and has no objection, if the FIR and all subsequent proceedings pending against him are quashed. He has acknowledged the execution of compromise deed (Annexure P-2). He has also filed another affidavit reiterating the factum of the compromise. 4. Such, thus, being the position on record, now the sole question that arises for determination in this petition is as to whether the FIR deserves to be quashed in this respect or not? 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to me justice would be sub-served if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter in this relevant direction. 6. It is not a matter of dispute 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 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. 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. 7. 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 like 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. 8. As is evident from the record that in the instant case, as the parties have amicably settled their disputes, therefore, 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. 9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No. 306 dated 19.07.2010 (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and the petitioner is discharged, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) November 18, 2010 Judge naresh.k