CRM No.M-25111 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-8.10.2010 Veero Devi & others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G Punjab. Mr.G.S.Rawat, Advocate for respondent No.2. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The conspectus of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the core controversy raised in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that the marriage of Paramjeet Kaur complainant (respondent No.2) was solemnized with Sikander Singh (petitioner No.3) four years prior to the present occurrence. After the marriage, they resided and cohabited as husband and wife and a male child was born out of the said wedlock. There was a family dispute with regard to the adoption of Diljan Singh. However, with the intervention of respectables of the society, the matter was compromised and in the meantime, she became pregnant. According to the complainant that the petitioners made a plan for termination of her pregnancy and some injection was given to her. Consequently, the child got aborted. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the complainant claimed that all the petitioners-accused tried to terminate her pregnancy with a mala fide intention. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused, vide FIR No.43 dated 23.7.2010 on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 313, 201 and 120-B IPC CRM No.M-25111 of 2010 2 by the police of Police Station Kotli Surat Malhi, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur. 3. What is not disputed before me is that during the pendency of the investigation, good sense prevailed and the matter was compromised between the parties at the intervention of respectables and relatives. They have decided to live together. 4. In this manner, 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 and do not want to prolong the litigation. In order to substantiate the validity of the compromise, the complainant, vide her separately recorded statement, reiterated and has stated that they have compromised the matter with the intervention of respectables and relations and prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings. In her affidavit (Annexure P1), complainant-respondent No.2 has stated that she has no objection if the FIR stands quashed. After the execution of compromise, none of the party will initiate any sort of civil and criminal litigation. The compromise has been effected freely and without any undue, influence, coercion. The parties have agreed to finish the litigation. 5. 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? 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 my mind, justice would be sub-served if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter in this relevant connection. 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 CRM No.M-25111 of 2010 3 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 matrimonial and property disputes, on the basis of lawful settlement. 9. As the parties are 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 the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No.43 dated 23.7.2010 and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and all the accused are discharged, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 8.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge