CRM No.M-26470 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-25.10.2010 Surinder Singh & others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Ashok Giri, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G., Punjab. Mr.Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The symposium of the facts, which need a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the present petition and emanating from the record, is that on 26.1.2009, complainant Bawa Singh (respondent No.2) was present at the spot alongwith his son Lakhbir Singh (respondent No.3) and grand son (Jatinder Singh) respondent No.4. At about 5.30 P.M., as soon as, they were taking out the sand with the help of JCB machine from the shamilat land of village for the purpose of putting it on the slab of the Primary School, in the meantime, all the accused armed with deadly weapons, came there and threatened them with dire consequences. The accused caused injuries to the complainant party with their respective weapons. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the prosecution that on 26.1.2009, all the accused caused injuries to the complainant party with their respective weapons and threatened them with dire consequences. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant Bawa Singh, the present case was CRM No.M-26470 of 2010 2 registered against the petitioners-accused, vide FIR No.10 dated 27.1.2009 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 148, 323, 324, 332, 341, 353 and 506 read with section 149 IPC by the police of Police Station Kurali, Distt.SAS Nagar. 3. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report under section 173 Cr.PC/challan against the petitioners in the trial Court. 4. What is not disputed here is that during the pendency of the trial, the good sense prevailed and the matter was compromised between the parties at the intervention of respectables and relatives. They have settled all their disputes and decided to live peacefully. 5. In this manner, now the petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing the FIR (Annexure P1) 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 executed the compromise deed (Annexure P2) and respondents No.2 to 4, who are present in Court, filed their affidavits in this regard. In order to substantiate the validity of the compromise, the complainant- respondent Nos.2 and 3, vide their separately recorded statements, have stated that they have amicably settled their disputes and entered into compromise. They have no ill-will against each other. The compromise will help in their peaceful living. As per compromise deed (Annexure P2), the parties have compromised the matter with the intervention of respectables of the village. The complainant party does not want to pursue the case against the petitioners and has no objection if the FIR is quashed. 6. 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? 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone CRM No.M-26470 of 2010 3 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. 8. 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. 9. 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 injury 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. 10. As the parties have lawfully agreed to settle the dispute, therefore, 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 CRM No.M-26470 of 2010 4 and as contemplated in the Constitution of India. 11. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No.10 dated 27.1.2009 (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and the petitioners are discharged, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 25.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge