CRM No.M-18551 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-1.11.2010 Gagandeep Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, DAG Punjab. Mr.G.S.Rawat, Advocate for respondent No.2. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Tersenessly, the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the core controversy involved in the present petition and emanating from the record, is that on 13.6.2010 at about 11 A.M., complainant Isha Chopra alias Eshu (respondent No.2) went to the Bus stop, Jalandhar for boarding the bus. The petitioners-accused, who were already standing there, started harassing her at the bus stand. She lodged protest in this respect. Thereafter, petitioner Rajiv Verma gave a slap on her face. She raised noise. Kulwinder Singh, security guard, intervened and arrested petitioner Rajiv Verma at the spot, while petitioner Gagandeep Singh snatched SIM card of her mobile and managed to escape from the place of occurrence. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant-respondent No.2, the present case was registered against the petitioners-accused, vide FIR No.102 dated 13.6.2010 on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 354 and 379 read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Division No.7, Jalandhar, in the manner CRM No.M-18551 of 2010 2 described here-in-above. 2. What is not disputed here is that during the course of the investigation, the good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their disputes and entered into compromise. The complainant has filed her affidavit (Annexure P1) in this respect. 3. In this manner, now the petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing the FIR and all subsequent proceedings thereto on the basis of compromise, invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia, pleading that the parties have compromised the matter. In order to substantiate the validity of the compromise, the complainant, vide her separately recorded statement, has stated that due to misunderstanding, she lodged the present case against the petitioners. They were already known to her. She has amicably settled their disputes and did not want to prosecute the petitioners. She has no objection if the FIR is quashed. She has also filed her affidavit (Annexure P1) in this context. 4 Such thus 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? 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 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. CRM No.M-18551 of 2010 3 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 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 the complainant did not want to prosecute the petitioners. 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.102 dated 13.6.2010 and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and the petitioners are discharged, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 1.11.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge