Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harminder Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 10 September, 2012
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No.M-23104 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-23104 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision:10.09.2012
Harminder Singh and others .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.G.C.Shahpuri, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.Sameer Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana,
for respondent No.1-State.
Mr.Jagtar Singh, Advocate,
for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
****
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(oral) Concisely, 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-Hardeep Singh son of Gurbachan Singh, respondent No.2(for brevity "the complainant"), a criminal case was registered against the petitioners-accused Harminder Singh @ Digu and others, vide FIR No.197 dated 05.06.2012(Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 34 IPC (offence punishable under Section 326 IPC was added later on), by the police of Police Station City Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. During the course of investigation of the criminal case, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their disputes, by virtue of compromise-deed dated 25.07.2012(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-23104 of 2012 2 other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter alia, pleading that they are closely related and are neighbourers and with the intervention of respectables of the society, village Panchayat and relatives, they have amicably settled their all disputes. Both the parties will not keep any ill-will in their mind against each other. The complainant does not want to further proceed the matter. The complainant(respondent No.2) and injured- Satnam Singh(respondent No.3) have no objection, if the criminal case registered against the petitioners-accused is quashed. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioners sought to quash the impugned FIR(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, in the manner depicted hereinabove.
4. During the course of preliminary hearing, the Magistrate was directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties with regard to the genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise-deed(Annexure P-2) between them, by this Court, vide order dated August 02, 2012.
5. In pursuance thereof, the Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, has submitted his report bearing No.1061 dated 21.08.2012, which in substance is as under:-
"In compliance to the said order of Hon'ble High Court, parties had appeared before this Court on 18.08.2012 and had filed original compromise Ex.CX on the file. Their statements were recorded. They were generally enquired and I am satisfied that they have compromised the matter and the compromise Ex.CX filed by them is genuine and valid."
6. Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that the parties have amicably settled their disputes through the medium of compromise-deed dated 25.07.2012(Annexure P-2) and the report of the trial Court.
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 CRM No.M-23104 of 2012 3 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 disputes between the parties.
10. 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 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 CRM No.M-23104 of 2012 4 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 duly applicable 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, the parties have amicably settled their disputes with the intervention of respectable persons and village Panchayat, by means of compromise-deed(Annexure P-2), without any kind of pressure and fear. They have no grudge against each other and compromise is for the betterment of both the parties. They want to live in peace. Both the parties belong to the same village and are neighbourers. The complainant does not want to further pursue the matter. The complainant(respondent No.2) and injured- Satnam Singh(respondent No.3) have no objection, if the criminal case registered against the petitioners-accused, vide FIR(Annexure P-1) is quashed. The factum and genuineness of the compromise between the parties is also reiterated by the Magistrate in his indicated report. 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 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 relevant behalf.
12. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR No.197 dated 05.06.2012(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. The petitioners-accused are accordingly discharged from the indicated criminal case registered against them in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
September 10, 2012 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE