Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chhinderpal Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 10 September, 2012
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No.M-21649 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(1) CRM No.M-21649 of 2012(O&M)
Chhinderpal Singh and others .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another .....Respondents
(2) CRM No.M-21650 of 2012(O&M)
Hardeep Singh and others .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another .....Respondents
Date of Decision:10.09.2012
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.Prem Chand Chaudhary, Advocate,
for the petitioners in CRM No.M-21649 of 2012( 1st case) and
for respondent No.2 in cross CRM No.M-21650 of 2012(2nd case).
Mr.Madan Pal, Advocate,
for the petitioners in CRM No.M-21650 of 2012(2nd case) and
for respondent No.2 in CRM No.M-21649 of 2012(1st case).
Mr.Raj Preet Singh Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab,
for the respondent-State.
****
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(oral) As identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the above indicated petitions, arising out of the same criminal case of cross-version/FIR, by means of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition of facts.
2. Tersely, the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant petitions and emanating from the record are CRM No.M-21649 of 2012 2 that, initially in the wake of complaint of complainant-Hardeep Singh son of Bhola Singh, respondent No.2(for brevity "the complainant in 1st case"), a criminal case was registered against the petitioners-accused Chhinderpal Singh and others, by way of FIR No.67 dated 27.10.2011(Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 365, 325, 323, 341, 148 and 149 IPC, by the police of Police Station Bareta, District Mansa.
3. At the same time, complainant-Harmesh Singh son of Darshan Singh, respondent No.2(for short "the complainant in 2nd case") also sustained injuries in the same very incident/occurrence. On his statement, a cross criminal case was also registered against the petitioners-accused Hardeep Singh and others, by way of same FIR(Annexure P-1), for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 323 and 34 IPC, by the police of same Police Station.
4. During the course of investigation of the criminal cases, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their disputes, by means of settlement/agreement dated 23.01.2012(Annexure P-2) and the affidavits (Annexures P-3 and P-4) in both the cross-cases.
5. Having compromised the matter, now the petitioners-accused in both the cross-cases, have preferred the present petitions, to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter alia, pleading that with the intervention of common friends and respectable persons of the village, they have reconciled and amicably settled their disputes vide settlement/agreement(Annexure P-2), by pardoning each other, in order to live in peace and harmony in future. They belong to the same village. They do not want to pursue their respective criminal cases against each other. The complainants in both the cases have no objection, if the respective cross-cases registered against each other are quashed. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioners-accused in both the cases sought to quash the CRM No.M-21649 of 2012 3 impugned FIR(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, in the manner depicted hereinabove.
6. During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties, with regard to the genuineness and validity or otherwise of the settlement/agreement(Annexure P-2) between them, by this Court, vide order dated July 26, 2012.
7. In pursuance thereof, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, has submitted his report bearing No.318 dated 29.08.2012, which in substance is as under:-
"It is respectfully submitted that the complainant Hardeep Singh appeared in the Court. The accused persons namely Chhinderpal Singh, Amritpal Singh, Nirmal Singh, Mela Singh and Harmesh Singh also appeared in the Court.
The statement of the accused persons Chhinderpal Singh and others has been recorded to the effect that they have compromised the matter with the complainant and that they did not exert any coercion or undue influence on the complainant, which was voluntarily made by the complainant.
The statement of the complainant has been recorded to the effect that the matter has been compromised with the accused persons and that the case may be decided as per compromise.
Statement of the accused persons alongwith statement of complainant is Appendix-A. The statement of the Balwinder Singh Sarpanch, Gurdarshan Singh, Numberdar, Harmohinder Singh Ex.Sarpanch and Gurbaksh Singh witness, residents of village Sirsiwala has also been recorded to the effect that the matter has been compromised between the complainant and the accused persons and they know the parties personally ad they identify the parties. The statement of the witnesses is Appendix-B. From the statements recorded before the Court, it can be said the compromise is voluntary in nature, not having been obtained by use of undue influence or coercion."
8. Sequelly, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, has also submitted his report in the cross criminal case(CRM No.M-21650 of 2012), wherein having CRM No.M-21649 of 2012 4 recorded the statements of all the concerned parties, it was concluded that the parties have genuinely entered into a compromise and settled their all disputes, without any kind of pressure.
9. Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that the parties have amicably settled their disputes without any kind of pressure, through the medium of settlement/agreement(Annexure P-2) in both the cross-cases and reports of the trial Court.
10. Such, thus, being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in these petitions is, as to whether the present criminal prosecution against the petitioners deserves to be quashed in view of the compromise or not?
11. 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 petitions deserve to be accepted in this relevant context.
12. 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 disputes between the parties.
13. The crux of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is that the CRM No.M-21649 of 2012 5 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.
14. As is evident from the record that, in both the cross-cases, the parties have amicably settled their disputes with the intervention of respectable persons and village Panchayat, with their own sweet will and without any kind of pressure, vide settlement/agreement(Annexure P-2) and affidavits(Annexures P-3 and P-4) in both the cases. Now no dispute or difference is left between them. Both the parties belong to the same village. They have decided to withdraw their respective cases registered against each other. They want to live peacefully in future. The complainants have no objection if both the criminal cross-cases registered against each other are quashed. The factum and genuineness of the compromise between the parties is also reiterated by the Magistrate in his indicated reports. 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 CRM No.M-21649 of 2012 6 peace and to enjoy 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.
15. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petitions are accepted. Consequently, both the cross-cases arising out of the same FIR No.67 dated 27.10.2011(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed. All the petitioners-accused are accordingly discharged, from the indicated both the cross-cases in the obtaining circumstances of the cases.
September 10, 2012 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE