CRM No.M-28762 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-28762 of 2010 Date of Decision:02.11.2010 Amandeep Kumar @ Amandeep Singh and another ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Davinder Bir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The symposium of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the present petition, is that complainant-Bakhshish Singh son of Lachhman Singh was the owner of the land in dispute. On 07.08.2009, when he contacted the Halqa Patwari for getting a copy of Jamabandi, then he came to know that as per revenue record, his land in question stood sold and the mutation was entered in the name of accused- Sukhwinder Singh son of Dalip Singh. On inquiry, it revealed that some person had impersonated him and executed the sale-deed in favour of petitioner No.2- accused Sukhwinder Singh. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the complainant claimed that the accused have committed a criminal conspiracy, cheated him, prepared the false sale-deed by impersonation and got transferred his land in favour of accused-Sukhwinder Singh. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of complainant-Bakhshish Singh, the present case was registered against the petitioners-accused, vide FIR CRM No.M-28762 of 2010 2 No.245 dated 14.09.2007(Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station, Division No.5, Ludhiana. 3. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report/challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against the accused in the trial Court. During the pendency of the trial, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably compromised the matter vide compromise(Annexure P-3). 4. That being so, now the petitioners have filed the instant petition for quashing the FIR (Annexure P1) and all subsequent proceedings thereto on the basis of compromise(Annexure P-3), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia, pleading that they have settled their all pending disputes. The petitioners-accused have admitted the ownership of the complainant over the property in dispute and undertook that they will make the statement in the civil court in this regard. The revenue record would be got corrected accordingly. Not only that, in pursuance of the order of this Court, the trial Magistrate has recorded the statements of the complainant and the accused and came to conclusion that the parties have effected the compromise voluntarily and without any pressure with the intervention of the respectable persons. Meaning thereby, as the parties have settled their disputes, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in prosecuting the petitioners-accused in this relevant connection. 5. Such, thus, being the position on record, now the core question that arises for determination in this petition is as to whether the FIR deserves to be quashed in this respect or not? 6. Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, justice would be sub-served if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter in this relevant direction. 7. The law of settlement of criminal disputes by virtue of compromise CRM No.M-28762 of 2010 3 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 case Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052. 8. 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 attracted in the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 9. As is evident from the record that in the instant case, as the parties have lawfully agreed to settle the dispute, therefore, 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. 10. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No.245 dated 14.09.2007(Annexure P-1) and all CRM No.M-28762 of 2010 4 other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and the petitioners are discharged, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. November 02, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE