Gurlal Singh @ Sonu and Others vs State of Punjab and Another

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—As, identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to decide both the above indicated petitions, pertaining to the same incident, arising out of the same cross-case, by means of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition. Tersely, the facts and material, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petitions and emanating from the record are that, initially in the wake of statement of complainant-Jasbir Singh @ Bunty, respondent No. 2(for brevity "the complainant in the 1st case), a criminal case was registered against the petitioners-accused Gurlal Singh @ Sonu and others, by virtue of FIR No. 30 dated 30.03.2008 (Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 452, 326, 324, 148 and 149 IPC.

Sequelly, since the accused-party also suffered injuries in the same very occurrence, so, on the basis of statement of the complainant-Gurlal Singh @ Sonu, respondent No. 2 (for short "the complainant in the 2nd case"), another cross-case(Annexure P-2) was registered against the petitioners-accused Jasbir Singh @ Bunty and others, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 326, 325, 324, 323, 148 and 149 IPC, by the police of Police Station Sarhali, District Tarn Taran.

After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the challan/final police reports in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. to prosecute the petitioners-accused for the commission of indicated offences in the Court. Accordingly, they were charge-sheeted in both the cross-cases and the cases were slated for evidence of the prosecution.

During the pendency of the cross-cases, good sense prevailed and both the parties have amicably settled their disputes, by means of compromise-deed dated 09.09.2010(Annexure P-2) in the 1st case and Annexure P-3 in the 2nd case.

Having compromised the matter, now the petitioners-accused in both the cross-cases have preferred the present petitions for quashing the FIR(Annexure P-1) and cross-version(Annexure P-2), on the basis of compromise(Annexures P-2 and P-3), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter alia, pleading that with the intervention of respectables, they have amicably settled their disputes. The complainant(s) do not want to further pursue the matter. They have no objection if the FIR, cross-version and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioners sought to quash the FIR(Annexure P-1), cross-version(Annexure P-2) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, in the manner indicated hereinabove.

During the course of preliminary hearing, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Daya Chaudhary, J.) in CRM No. M-733 of 2011(1st case) passed the following order on January 12, 2011:

The present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 30 dated 30.3.2008 under Sections 452/326/324/148/149 IPC registered at Police Station Sarhali, District Tarn Taran on the basis of compromise annexed as Annexure P-2 with the petition.

Notice of motion for 22.2.2011.

Meanwhile, the parties are directed to be present before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate on 28.1.2011 or any other date convenient to the Court to record statements of the parties. The trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate is directed to record the statements of both the parties to its satisfaction to know its genuineness that the statements are not the result of any pressure or coercion in ay manner. The trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate is directed to send a report with regard to validity or otherwise of the compromise effected between the parties before the next date of hearing.

The similar order was also passed in CRM No. M-737 of 2011(2nd case).

In pursuance thereof, the trial Court recorded the statements of the respective parties and sent its report bearing No. 20 dated 09.02.2011, in which, it was reiterated that as per statements of both the parties, they have genuinely amicably settled their disputes, vide compromise dated 09.09.2010(Annexure P-2).

Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that the parties have amicably settled their disputes in both the cross-cases by means of compromise (Annexures P-2 and P-3) and report of the trial Court.

Above 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?

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 dispute between the parties, the present petitions deserve to be accepted in this relevant connection.

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 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.

The crux of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is that the power u/s 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.

As is evident from the record that, in the instant cases, both the parties have amicably compromised the matter with the intervention of respectables of the village. The parties belong to the same village. They have no grudge against each other. Now they want to live in peace in future. The complainant(s) in both the cross-cases have also filed their respective affidavits (Annexure P-3 in the 1st case and Annexure P-4 in the 2nd case"), wherein, they have reiterated the factum of compromise and maintained that they have no objection if the respective cross-cases registered against each other are quashed. The factum and genuineness of the compromise between the parties is also reiterated by the trial Court in its 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), cross-version(Annexure P-2) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, deserve to be quashed in this relevant behalf. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petitions are hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No. 30 dated 30.03.2008(Annexure P-1), cross-case (version)(Annexure P-2) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. The petitioners-accused in both the cross-cases are accordingly acquitted of the charges framed against them, in the obtaining circumstances of the cases.