IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-27164 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.11.2010 Monu @ Manjit Singh and others ...Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Chandu Majra, D.A.G., Punjab for respondent No. 1-State. Mr. Sanjeev K. Virk, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) Tersenessly, the facts, relevant for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy raised in the present petition and emanating from the record, are that complainant-Sarabjit Singh @ Sonu (respondent No.2) was running a shoe store on Baoli Sahib Road, Nadala, District Kapurthala and his wife was also running a Beauty Parlour opposite to his shop. On 02.06.2010 at 10.30 A.M. the petitioners- accused came there and started quarreling with him. He lodged a protest in this regard. On hearing the voice his wife also reached the spot. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in the FIR (Anneuxre P-1), in all, according to the prosecution that the petitioners- accused-Monu caused injuries to complainant-Sarabjit Singh with dattar while the remaining accused caught hold of him. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioners-accused, vide FIR No.51 dated 05.06.2010 (Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 326 and read with Section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station, Subhanpur, District Kapurthala, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 3. What is not disputed here is that during the course of investigation, the good sense prevailed between the parties and they have amiably settled their disputes, vide compromise deed (Annexure P-2). 4. That being so, now the petitioners-accused have moved the instant petition for quashing the FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter-alia, pleading that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and compromised the matter, vide compromise deed (Annexure P-2) with the intervention of respectable persons and panchayat. As per terms of the compromise, complainant-Sarabjit Singh does not want to take any action in pursuance of the indicated FIR against the petitioners-accused. He has no objection, if the FIR in question is quashed. The parties want to live in peace and harmony. Both the parties belonged to the same locality. 5. 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? 6. 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 my mind, justice would be sub-served if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter in this relevant direction. 7. 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 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 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 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. 10. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No. 51 dated 05.06.2010 (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and the petitioners-accused are discharged, from the indicated case in the obtaining circumstances of the case. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) November 18, 2010 Judge naresh.k