Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurnam Kaur & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 27 September, 2012
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No. M-27532 of 2012 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No. M-27532 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision:-27.9.2012
Gurnam Kaur & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present: Mr.Vijay Lath, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.T.S.Salana, DAG Punjab for respondent No.1.
Mr.Surinder Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
The crux of the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, in the wake of complaint of complainant Rajwant Kaur d/o Gurbakhsh Singh -respondent No.2 (in short "the complainant"), a criminal case was registered against petitioners-accused Gurnam Kaur & others, by virtue of FIR No.123 dated 16.8.2007 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 323, 452 and 506 read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Sadar, Rupnagar.
2. After the completion of the investigation, the police submitted the challan/final police report, in terms of Section 173 Cr.PC. Accordingly, the petitioners-accused were charge sheeted for the trial of pointed offences by the trial Court and the case was slated for evidence of CRM No. M-27532 of 2012 (O&M) -2- prosecution.
3. During the pendency of the criminal case, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their dispute, by means of compromise dated 2.9.2012 (Annexure P2).
4. Having compromised the matter, now the petitioners-accused have preferred the present petition to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC on the basis of compromise, inter-alia pleading that both the parties are closely related to each other. With the intervention of family members, relatives and respectable persons of the village, they have resolved their dispute and removed their misunderstandings with a sole motive to prevail upon better relations in future. They belong to the same village. They want to live in peace and harmony. They have no grudge against each other and are living peacefully. Both the parties have agreed to withdraw all civil and criminal litigations filed by them against each other. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioners-accused sought to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto in the manner depicted 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 indicated compromise by this Court, vide order dated 7.9.2012.
6. In compliance thereof, the trial Court submitted its report, bearing No.753 dated 22.9.2012, which, in substance, is as under:- CRM No. M-27532 of 2012 (O&M) -3-
"I have the honour to submit that kindly refer to the subject cited above, it is submitted that today on 21.9.2012, complainant Rajwant Kaur d/o Gurbakhsh Singh resident of village Bairampur, Police Station Sadar Ropar, District Ropar, appeared in the court and got recorded her separate statement that present case was got registered by her against accused namely Gurnam Kaur, Harjot Kaur @ Jyoti, Harsawraj Singh @ Sawraj Singh @ Kala, residents of village Bairampur, Police Station Sadar Ropar, District Ropar. Now, the matter in dispute has been compromised vide compromise deed dated 2.9.2012, copy of which is Ex.CX. The compromise is correct and it has been effected without any pressure or any undue influence. It bears her signatures. Now, she does not want to proceed further with this case. Then, eye witnesses Baljinder Kaur and Balwinder Kaur, both residents of village Bairampur, Police Station Sadar Ropar, District Ropar also appeared and got recorded separate statement that they are eye witnesses in this case and this case was got registered by Gurnam Kaur. Now, the matter in dispute has been compromised between the parties vide compromise deed dated 2.9.2012, copy of which is Ex.CX. The compromise is correct and has been effected without any pressure or any undue influence. It bears their signatures. Then, accused namely Gurnam Kaur, Harjot Kaur @ Jyoti and Harsawaraj Singh also appeared and got recorded their joint separate statement that they have heard statements of complainant Rajwant Kaur, eye witnesses Baljinder Kaur and Balwinder Kaur and the same are correct. The matter in dispute has been compromised vide compromise deed dated 2.9.2012, copy of which is Ex.CX. In these circumstances, it seems that genuine compromise has been effected between the parties. Hence, the present report."
7. In this manner, it stands proved on record that the parties have amicably settled their dispute, by means of compromise deed (Annexure P2). The complainant has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed.
8. Above being the position on record, now the short & significant question, though important, that arises for determination in the CRM No. M-27532 of 2012 (O&M) -4- present case is, as to whether the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) 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 prosecution is liable to be quashed as per the compromise between them.
10. What cannot possibly be disputed here is 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 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 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 & control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in CRM No. M-27532 of 2012 (O&M) -5- 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 quash the criminal proceedings, relatable to such fight 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 both the parties are closely related to each other. They have amicably settled their disputes at the instance of family members, relatives and respectable persons of village, without any kind of influence or pressure, by means of compromise (Annexure P2). They have resolved their dispute and removed their misunderstandings with a sole motive to prevail upon better relations in future. They belong to the same village. They want to live in peace and harmony. They have no grudge against each other and are living peacefully. Both the parties have agreed to withdraw all civil and criminal litigations filed by them against each other. They shall abide by the terms & conditions of the compromise. The complainant has reiterating the factum of compromise. He has no objection if criminal case registered against the petitioners is quashed. The genuineness and validity of compromise has also been reiterated by the Magistrate in his CRM No. M-27532 of 2012 (O&M) -6- indicated report. Therefore, the compromise is in welfare & interest of both 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 (Annexure P1) and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto are quashed. Accordingly, the petitioners-accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
27.9.2012 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge