Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaspal Singh vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 24 September, 2012
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No. M-24644 of 2012 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No. M-24644 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision:-24.9.2012
Jaspal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Anr.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present: Mr.Aditya Pal Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Gaurav Verma, AAG Haryana for respondent No.1.
Nemo for respondent No.2.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
Tersely, the facts & material, which require to be noticed for deciding the instant petition and emanating from the record, are that, in pursuance of complaint of complainant Hari Singh-respondent No.2 (for brevity "the complainant"), a criminal case was registered against the petitioner-accused, by way of FIR No.34 dated 26.1.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC by the police of Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula.
2. After the completion of the investigation, the police submitted the challan/final police report, in terms of Section 173 Cr.PC against the petitioner-accused to face the trial for the offences in question in the Court.
3. During the pendency of the case, good sense prevailed and CRM No. M-24644 of 2012 (O&M) -2- the parties have amicably settled their dispute at the intervention of respectables and relatives, by virtue of compromise deed (Annexure P1). The complainant has filed an affidavit (Annexure P2) in this relevant connection.
4. Having compromised the matter, the petitioner-accused has preferred the present petition to quash the impugned FIR and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC on the basis of compromise, inter-alia pleading that with the intervention of respectables and relatives, the parties have entered into compromise (Annexure P1). They have redressed their grievance. The complainant has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed. He has also filed an affidavit (Annexure P2), reiterating the factum of compromise. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioner sought to quash the impugned FIR and all consequent proceedings arising thereto in the manner described here-in-above.
5. During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties with regard to genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise, vide order dated 16.8.2012.
6. In compliance thereof, the CJM Panchkula submitted his report, bearing No.822 dated 27.8.2012, which, in substance, is as under:-
"In reference to the above noted subject, it is humbly submitted that the undersigned has received the order referred from the Hon'ble High Court. Vide order above referred, the Hon'ble High Court had pleased to direct the parties to approach the Court of the undersigned and the undersigned was directed to record the finding about the genuineness of the compromise and about voluntary nature of the statements suffered by CRM No. M-24644 of 2012 (O&M) -3- the parties, validity and otherwise of the compromise. In order to reach on the satisfaction, the undersigned had examined the parties on oath. Please find enclosed herewith the statements of the parties. After recording the statements of the parties and on the basis of the oral queries, the undersigned was satisfied that the parties have entered into compromise voluntarily. The undersigned has also passed orders in these regards, had also enclosed herewith the copies of the orders by which the undersigned reached on satisfaction. The undersigned is satisfied that in the case titled as "State v. Jaspal" bearing case no.118-1 of 26.03.2010 under Sections 379, 420, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code, PS Sector 5, Panchkula wherein the parties had approached the Hon'ble High Court for quashing of the FIR on the basis of the compromise and which had resulted in the order above referred, the parties have arrived on a volunteer compromise, without any pressure or coercion and no other case is pending between the parties as per their statements suffered by them in the Court."
7. That means, it stands proved on record that the parties have amicably settled their dispute, by means of compromise deed (Annexure P1). The complainant has filed an affidavit (Annexure P2), in this context. He has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed.
8. Above being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in the present case is, as to whether the impugned FIR and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed in view of the settlement or not ?
9. Having regard to the contentions of learned counsel for parties, to me, it would be in the interest and justice would be sub-served, if the instant criminal prosecution is quashed and the parties are allowed to live in peace. Moreover, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that in view of the settlement of disputes between the parties, the criminal CRM No. M-24644 of 2012 (O&M) -4- prosecution is liable to be quashed as per the compromise between them.
10. The law with regard to quashing of such criminal prosecution on the basis of settlement between the parties, through the medium of compromise, has now been well-settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases Shiji @ Pappu and others v. 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.
11. The symposium 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 & 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 means 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.
12. Meaning thereby, the High Court has unlimited power to CRM No. M-24644 of 2012 (O&M) -5- quash the criminal proceedings, relatable to such disputes, on the basis of lawful settlement. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgments "mutatis mutandis" is applicable in the instant case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.
13. As is evident from the record, that the parties have amicably settled their disputes at the intervention of respectables and relatives. They have decided to live in peace and harmony in future. The complainant has filed affidavit (Annexure P2), reiterating the factum of compromise. He has no objection if the impugned FIR registered against the petitioner is quashed. The genuineness and validity of compromise has also been reiterated by the CJM Panchkula in his indicated report. Therefore, the compromise (Annexure P1) is in welfare & interest of the parties. To my mind, 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.
14. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR No.34 dated 26.1.2010 under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC registered by the Police of Police Station Sector 5 Panchkula and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto, are hereby quashed. Accordingly, the petitioner-accused is discharged from the indicated criminal case.
24.9.2012 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge