Harbans Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Sumeet Narang, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.S.S.Chandumajra, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1-State. Mr.Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The conspectus of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the present petition and emanating from the record, is that on 27.08.2002, complainant-Kuldeep Singh, BDPO(respondent No.2) along with Naib Tehsildar and the police party went to the village Ghuman, for vacating the land belonging to the Panchayat, in pursuance of the order of the Deputy Commissioner. Then, petitioner-accused-Harbans Singh and his wife Sukhwant Kaur started abusing, while petitioner No.2- Parminder Singh alias Palwinder Singh son of Balwant Singh started throwing the bricks towards the officials. They were apprehended by the police. Thereafter, the land was got vacated from their illegal possession at the spot and the possession was handed over to the Gram Panchayat. In all, according to the prosecution, the petitioners-accused assaulted and used the criminal force to deter the public servants from discharge of their official duties. On the basis of CRM No.M-14254 of 2010 2 aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of complainant-Kuldeep Singh, BDPO(respondent No.2), the present case was registered against the petitioners- accused, vide FIR No.118 dated 27.08.2002(Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 353, 186, 341 and 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station Ghuman, District Gurdaspur. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report/challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C., against the accused to face the trial for the commission of indicated offences in the trial Court.

What is not disputed here is that during the pendency of the case, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their all disputes and entered into compromise(Annexure P-3). Complainant-Kuldeep Singh has also filed his affidavit(Annexure R-2) in this regard.

In this manner, now the petitioners have instituted the present petition for quashing the FIR(Annexure P-1), Challan(Annexure P-2) and all subsequent proceedings thereto on the basis of compromise(Annexure P-3), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter alia, pleading that the parties have compromised the matter in the presence of the respectables. They have no grudge against each other and they are satisfied with the arrangement arrived at between them. They will live peacefully and will not plough/encroach upon their respective boundaries.

Not only that, in pursuance of the order of this Court, the trial Magistrate has sent the report, inter alia, reiterating that the parties have made their statements on oath that they have amicably settled the disputes with the intervention of the respectables of the area, including the present Sarpanch of village Ghuman. They have voluntarily entered into compromise(Annexure P-3). Annexure R-2 is the affidavit of the complainant in this relevant connection.

Such, thus, 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 proceedings or not?

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to me, justice would be sub-served if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter in this relevant connection.

It is not a matter of dispute that 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 context was transformed in reality by Hon'ble Apex Court in cases 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.

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 and 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 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 like cases, on the basis of lawful settlement. The law laid down CRM No.M-14254 of 2010 4 in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is fully attracted in the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.

As is evident from the record that in the instant case, as the parties have lawfully agreed to settle the disputes, therefore, the compromise is in their welfare and interest. The concerned parties have undertaken not to encroach upon the land of each other, thus, to me, 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 aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No.118 dated 27.08.2002(Annexure P-1), challan (Annexure P-2) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and the petitioners are acquitted in this context, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. November 10, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) JUDGE