Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunit Kumar Jain And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 8 August, 2012
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No.M-18994 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-18994 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision:August 08, 2012
Sunit Kumar Jain and others .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.Sunil Chadha, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.Raj Preet Singh Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab,
for respondent No.1-State.
Mr.Amit Kohar, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
****
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(oral) The conspectus of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant petition and emanating from the record is that, in the wake of complaint of complainant-Pankaj Singhi son of Devinder Singhi, respondent No.2(for brevity "the complainant"), a criminal case was registered against the petitioners-accused, by virtue of FIR No.455 dated 13.12.2003(Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 63 and 64 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 and Sections 102 and 103 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, by the police of Police Station Jodhewal Basti, Ludhiana.
2. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the challan/final police report in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the petitioners-accused were accordingly charge-sheeted for the commission of the pointed offences by the trial court and the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution.
CRM No.M-18994 of 2012 2
3. During the pendency of the criminal case, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their disputes, by means of compromise-deed dated 25.05.2012(Annexure P-2) and affidavit(Annexure P-3) of the complainant.
4. Having compromised the matter, now the petitioners-accused have directed the present petition, 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 they have amicably settled their all disputes. Now with the intervention of respectable members of the society/business community and friends, the subject matter of the FIR stands duly compromised between the parties. The complainant is no longer interested in further pursuing the matter. The complainant, who is today present in the Court has reiterated the factum of compromise. He has 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.
5. Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that the parties have amicably settled their disputes by means of compromise-deed dated 25.05.2012 (Annexure P-2) and affidavit(Annexure P-3) of the complainant.
6. Such, thus, 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?
7. 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 relevant behalf. CRM No.M-18994 of 2012 3
8. It is not a matter of dispute that, 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.
9. 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 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.
10. As is evident from the record that, the parties have amicably settled their disputes with the intervention of respectable members of the society/business CRM No.M-18994 of 2012 4 community and friends. The complainant is not interested in further pursuing the matter. In the affidavit(Annexure P-3), he has also reiterated the factum of compromise and has stated that he has no objection if the impugned FIR(Annexure P-1) 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 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 connection.
11. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is accepted. Consequently, FIR No.455 dated 13.12.2003(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed. The petitioners- accused are accordingly acquitted of the charges framed against them, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
August 08, 2012 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE