Mohan Lal vs State of Punjab and Another

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Tersely, the facts and material, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record are that, in the wake of complaint of complainant-Raj Rani, respondent No.2(for brevity "the complainant"), a criminal case was registered against the petitioner-accused, by way of FIR No.135 dated 07.10.2008(Annexure P-1), for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 509, 510 IPC read with Section 146 of the Railways Act, by the police of Police Station GRPS, Ludhiana. During the pendency of the criminal case, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their disputes, by means of affidavit(Annexure P-2) of the complainant.

Having compromised the matter, now the petitioner has preferred the present petition for quashing the FIR(Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter alia, pleading that with the intervention of friends, elders and respectable, they have amicably settled the disputes vide affidavit(Annexure P-2). The complainant does not want to pursue the matter further. She has no objection if the FIR and all other subsequent proceedings arising there from are quashed. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioner sought to quash the FIR(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising there from, in the manner described hereinabove.

During the course of preliminary hearing, a Coordinate Bench of this Court(Nirmaljit Kaur, J.) directed the parties to appear before the trial Court for recording their respective statements.

In pursuance thereof, the trial Court recorded the respective statements of the parties and submitted its report bearing No.113 dated 20.04.2012, which in substance is as under:

Statements of complainant Smt.Raj Rani wife of Sh.Chamkaur Deen on identification of Sh.Shakti Jain, Advocate and of Mohan Lal-accused on identification of Sh.Hanush Jindal, Advocate, recorded on 17.04.2012. Complainant and accused stated that they have compromised with each other voluntarily and without any pressure and no other litigation is pending between them.

From the statements, it appears that the statements with regard to compromise have been made by the parties voluntarily, without any pressure and the compromise appears to be genuine.

Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that the parties have amicably settled their disputes by means of affidavit(Annexure P-2) of the complainant 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 this petition is, as to whether the present criminal prosecution against the petitioner 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 petition deserves to be accepted in this relevant direction.

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 epitome 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 endeavor 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 fully attracted 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 case, the parties have amicably settled their disputes with the intervention of respectable of both sides, vide affidavit(Annexure P-2) of the complainant. She does not want to pursue the matter further. Now, they have no grudge against each other. The complainant has no objection if the impugned FIR(Annexure P-1) is 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) and all other subsequent proceedings arising there from, deserve to be quashed in this respect. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No.135 dated 07.10.2008(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising there from, are quashed. The petitioner-accused is accordingly discharged, from the indicated criminal case in the obtaining circumstances of the case.