Babla & Ors. v. State of Punjab and another

Mr.Premjit Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.S.S.Chandu Majra, D.A.G., Punjab. Mr.Karamjit Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) The epitome of facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy raised in this instant petition and emanating from the record, is that on 02.11.2009 petitioners-accused and complainant-Kulwinder Singh son of Bagher Singh (respondent No.2) were attending a marriage party at Mittal Palace Bagha Purana. At about 12.30 A.M. petitioners-accused started some altercation with the members of the marriage party and dragged Rahul Soni outside the palace. They starting firing with their weapons in the air. As soon as, complainant came forward to save Rahul Soni from their clutches, in the meantime, petitioner-accused Babla took a bottle of glass and hit on his (complainant's) right elbow. Petitioners-accused Neela and Ashoki also caused injuries with the bottle of glass on his chest and below the neck. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant- Kulwinder Singh (respondent No.2), the present case was registered against the petitioners-accused, vide FIR No.240 dated 22.11.2009 (Annexure P-1), for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 324 and 336 read with section 149 IPC and sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, in the manner Crl. Misc. No. M-31955 of 2010 2 indicated herein above.

2. What is not disputed here is that during the course of investigation, the parties have amicably settled their disputes, vide compromise deed dated

31.03.2010 (Annexure P-2). The police prepared the cancellation report in this case.

3. That being so, now, the petitioners-accused have filed the instant petition for quashing the FIR (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter-alia, pleading that the parties have amicably settled their disputes at the instance of respectable persons. In pursuance of the terms and conditions of the compromise, the complainant has no objection, if the FIR (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings thereto, instituted against the petitioners-accused are quashed.

4. Not only that, in pursuance of the order of this Court, the area Magistrate, after recording the statements of all the concerned parties has submitted its report dated 20.11.2010. The operative part of which is as under:- “On 19.11.2010, complainant Kulwinder Singh and accused Hanish Kumar, Babla, Sanjeev Kumar and Ashok M.C appeared with their ld. counsel Sh. Anish Kant Sharma Advocate. Complainant Kulwinder Singh made statement that due to intervention of the respectables of the locality, he has arrived at compromise with the above said accused without any pressure and coercion and that he has no objection if the above said FIR is quashed. Similarly, all the above said accused made statement they have entered into compromise with the complainant voluntarily without any fear, coercion and pressure and that compromise is genuine one. In view of the statement of complainant Kulwinder Singh as well as above named accused, it is respectfully reported that the compromise arrived at between them is correct and genuine one.”

5. Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that the parties have amicably resolved there disputes. Crl. Misc. No. M-31955 of 2010 3

6. Such thus being the position on record, now the sole question that arises for determination in this petition is as to whether the FIR deserves to be quashed in this respect or not?

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

8. 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 respect 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.

9. The crux of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is that the power under section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is fully attracted to the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. Crl. Misc. No. M-31955 of 2010 4

10. As is evident from the record that in the instant case, since the parties have amicably settled their disputes, so, the compromise is in their welfare and interest. 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.

11. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No.240 dated 22.11.2009 (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and the petitioners are discharged from the indicated case, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. December 09, 2010 naresh.k/AS (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge