Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdeep Singh @ Sabhi And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 20 September, 2012
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No.M-24166 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-24166 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision:20.09.2012
Gurdeep Singh @ Sabhi and another .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.K.K.Saini, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.Raj Preet Singh Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab,
for respondent Nos.1 and 2-State.
Mr.Vivek S.Dadwal, Advocate,
for respondent No.3.
****
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(oral) Tersely, the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant petition and emanating from the record are that, in the wake of complaint of complainant-Ravinder Singh son of Satpal Singh, respondent No.3(for brevity "the complainant"), the present criminal case was registered against the petitioners-accused Gurdeep Singh @ Sabhi and another, by way of FIR No.49 dated 02.07.2012(Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 506 and 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station Hariana, District Hoshiarpur.
2. During the course of investigation of the criminal case, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their disputes, by means of compromise dated 27.07.2012(Annexure P-2).
3. Having compromised the matter, now the petitioners-accused have directed the present petition, to quash the impugned FIR(Annexure P-1) and all CRM No.M-24166 of 2012 2 other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter alia, pleading that with the intervention of respectables and relatives, the matter has been amicably settled between them by way of compromise(Annexure P-2). Both the parties belong to the same District. They want to keep their cordial relations alive. They have redressed their grievances. They have decided to remove all misunderstandings between them. The complainant has no objection, if the present criminal case registered against the petitioners-accused is quashed. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioners-accused sought to quash the impugned FIR(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, in the manner indicated hereinabove.
4. During the course of preliminary hearing, the Magistrate, having the jurisdiction, was directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties with regard to the genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise(Annexure P-2), between them, by this Court vide order dated August 13, 2012.
5. In compliance thereof, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, has sent his report bearing No.340 dated 07.09.2012, which in substance is as under:-
"In pursuance to the above order, complainant Ravinder Singh as well as both the accused namely Gurdeep Singh and Vijay Kumar @ Gugy and also Investigating Officer ASI Tarsem were summoned in the Court on 05.09.12. Statement of complainant Ravinder Singh was recorded in which he has submitted that present case/FIR was registered at his statement against accused Vijay Kumar and Gurdeep Singh @ Sabhi and after registration of the case, with the efforts of respectables from the society, a compromise Ex.P1 (Annexure P2) was effected between him and above accused persons and further he stated that he has no objection if the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court quashes the above mentioned FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising there from. He further stated that the compromise is without any pressure and coercion from any side. Statements of both the accused persons were also recorded separately. It was stated by them that CRM No.M-24166 of 2012 3 present FIR was registered against them and after that a compromise Ex.P1 (Annexure P-2) was effected between the parties and the compromise is voluntarily and without any fear and coercion from any side. Investigating Officer ASI Tarsem Singh identified the parties and also stated that the compromise Ex.P1(Annexure P-2) was effected between the parties with their free consent."
6. Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that the parties have amicably settled their disputes, vide compromise(Annexure P-2) and report of the trial Court. The complainant has also filed reply by way of affidavit reiterating the factum of compromise between them.
7. Above being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in this petition is, as to whether the present criminal prosecution against the petitioners deserves to be quashed in view of the compromise or not?
8. Having regard to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, to my mind, it would be in the interest and justice would be sub-served, if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter. Moreover, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that, in view of the settlement of disputes between the parties, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context.
9. Admittedly, the law with regard to quashing such criminal prosecution on the basis of settlement between the parties by virtue of compromise, has now been well-settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases Shiji @ Pappu and others Versus Radhika and another, 2012(1) RCR (Criminal) 9, 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, wherein it was ruled that the High Court has vast inherent power to quash the criminal prosecution on the basis of settlement of CRM No.M-24166 of 2012 4 disputes between the parties.
10. 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 everlasting 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 disputes, on the basis of lawful settlement within the framework and restriction described by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The ratio of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments "mutatis mutandis" is fully attracted to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.
11. As is evident from the record that, in the instant case, the matter between the parties has been amicably settled by way of compromise(Annexure P-2), with the intervention of respectables and relatives, with their sweet will and without any kind of pressure. They belong to the same District. Now they have no grudge against each other. They have redressed their all grievances. They want to live in peace in future. The complainant has also reiterated the factum of compromise in his indicated affidavit. He has no objection if, the criminal case registered against the petitioners-accused is quashed. Thus, it would be seen that since, the compromise is in the welfare and interest of the parties, so, there is no impediment in translating their wishes into reality and to quash the criminal prosecution to set the matter at rest, to enable them to live in peace and to enjoy CRM No.M-24166 of 2012 5 the life and liberty in a dignified manner. Therefore, to me, the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, deserve to be quashed in this regard.
12. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR No.49 dated 02.07.2012(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed. The petitioners-accused are accordingly discharged from the indicated criminal case in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
September 20, 2012 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE