Kartar Singh and Others vs The State of Punjab and Others

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—The symposium of the facts, which need a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core

controversy raised the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that on 25.11.2008 at about 10 A.M., all the accused came to the spot

and started carving out the watercourse in the land of complainant Surjit Singh (Respondent No. 2). The complainant party raised objection in this

respect. At this, all the accused, who were armed with deadly weapons, caused injuries to the complainant, his wife Amar Kaur (Respondent No.

3) and mother Jamna Bibi (Respondent No. 4).

Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the prosecution that on 25.11.2008, all the accused

caused injuries to Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 with their respective weapons. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of

complainant Surjit Singh, the present case was registered against the Petitioners-accused, vide FIR No. 258 dated 25.11.2008 (Annexure P-1),

on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 324, 379, 427 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC and

Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, by the police of Police Station Sadar Jalalabad, Distt. Ferozepur.

After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report u/s 173 Code of Criminal Procedure/challan against the

Petitioners-accused in the trial Court. During the pendency of the trial, the good sense prevailed and the matter was compromised between the

parties at the intervention of respectables and relatives. The complainant-Respondent No. 2 filed his affidavit (Annexure P2) in this regard.

In this manner, now the Petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing the FIR (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings thereto

on the basis of compromise, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, inter-alia, pleading that the parties have

compromised the matter. They want to live peacefully with each other. They have no objection if the criminal proceedings against the Petitioners

are quashed. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (complainant and injured witnesses), who are present today in court, have maintained and reiterated the

factum of compromise, vide their separately recorded statements.

Above being the position on record, now the sole question that arises for determination in this petition is as to whether it would be expedient in

the interest of justice to quash the criminal prosecution or not?

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the

entire matter, to me, justice would be sub-served if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter in this relevant context.

The law of settlement of criminal disputes by virtue of compromise is not res-integra and is well settled. The clear and explicit intention of the

Legislature in this respect was transformed in reality by Hon''ble Apex Court in cases Manoj Sharma v. State and Ors. 2008(4) RCR 827; B.S.

Joshi v. State of Haryana 2003 (2) RCR 888 (SC) and Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

2007 (3) RCR 1052.

The epitome of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is that the power u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 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 injury cases, on the basis of lawful settlement. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgments ""mutatis

mutandis"" is fully applicable to the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.

As is evident from the record that since the parties have lawfully agreed to settle the dispute, so, to my mind, there is no impediment in

translating the wishes of the parties 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 as guaranteed by and as contemplated in the Constitution of India.

In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No. 258 dated 25.11.2008 (Annexure P-1)

and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and the Petitioners are discharged, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.