CRM No.M-23104 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-6.10.2010 Subhash and Navin ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Wazir Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Vikas Malik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Mr.Rishi Mahajan, Advocate respondent Nos.2 and 3. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The symposium of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present petition and emanating from the record, is that on 22.7.2010 at about 9.00 P.M., petitioners-accused came armed with sticks and pipes and entered the house of complainant Ashish Kumar with the intention to cause injuries. Thereafter, they (petitioners-accused) started giving injuries to complainant Ashish Kumar (respondent No.2) and Mukesh Kumar (respondent No.3) with their respective weapons. They raised noise, which attracted Baldev Singh, father of the complainant, who rescued them from the clutches of the accused. 2. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant Ashish Kumar, the present case was registered against the accused, vide FIR No.280 dated 23.7.2010 (Annexure P1) on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 323, 452 and 506 read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station City Sonepat, in the manner described here-in-above. 3. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the CRM No.M-23104 of 2010 2 challan/final police report under section 173 Cr.PC. It is not a matter of dispute that during the pendency of the case, good sense prevailed and the matter was compromised between the parties at the intervention of respectables, friends and relatives. They have settled all their disputes and decided to live peacefully. 4. In this manner, 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). Respondent Nos.2 and 3 also filed their affidavits in this respect. In order to substantiate the validity of the compromise, they have stated that they have compromised the matter with the intervention of respectables, friends and relations and prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings. As per compromise deed, the parties have amicably settled their dispute; they have no grudge against each other and the respondents do not want to pursue the case and they have no objection if the FIR is quashed. 5. 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? 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 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. 7. 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 CRM No.M-23104 of 2010 3 (Criminal) 1052. 8. The epitome 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. 9. Meaning thereby, the High Court has unlimited power to quash the criminal proceedings, relatable to injury cases, on the basis of lawful settlement. As the parties are 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 and as contemplated in the Constitution of India. 10. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No.280 dated 23.7.2010 (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and the petitioners are discharged, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 6.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge