AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—The conspectus of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and oozing out, from the record, is that, on 1.9.2011 at about 1.30 PM, as soon as, complainant Kuheena Sharma, daughter of Arun Sharma respondent No. 2 (for brevity "the complainant") came out of the main gate of her college, in the meantime, the petitioner-accused came there. She refused to talk to him. Thereafter, he caught hold of her by hair, pushed and slapped with the intention to insult her. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of statement of the complainant, a criminal case was registered against the petitioneraccused, vide FIR No. 417 dated 13.9.2011 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 354 IPC by the police of Police Station Sector 34, Chandigarh, in the manner described here-in-above. During the pendency of criminal case, good sense prevailed and the parties have mutually settled their dispute at the intervention of their relatives, by way of compromise deed (Annexure P2).
Having compromised the matter, the petitioner-accused preferred the present petition for quashing the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P2), invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC.
During the course of preliminary hearing, a Coordinate Bench (Daya Chaudhary, J.) of this Court passed the following order on 18.1.2012:-
The present petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 417 dated 13.9.2011 registered under Sections 323,354 IPC at Police Station Sector 34, Chandigarh, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).
Notice of motion to the respondents for 28.3.2012.
Mr. Parminder Singh-I, Advocate, who is present in Court accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.
Meanwhile, parties are directed to be present before the trial Court on the date fixed i.e. 30.1.2012 or any other date convenient to the Court for recording their statements with regard to compromise. The trial Court 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 any manner. The trial Court is also directed to send a report alongwith statements of the parties with regard to validity or otherwise of the compromise effected between the parties and also intimate whether any case is pending against either of the parties or not before the next date of hearing. The trial Court is also directed to intimate with regard to pendency of any P.O. proceedings against the parties.
In pursuance thereof, the JMIC submitted the status report dated 6.3.2012, which is as under:-
With due respect, it is submitted that as per the directions given by the Hon''ble High Court vide order dated 18.1.2012 regarding the fact as to whether the parties have entered into any compromise, the statement of the parties was recorded. As per the statement of complainant Ms. Kuheena who appeared along with her father Sh. Arun Sharma, she has compromised with the accused with the intervention of relatives and friends and thus does not want to pursue with the present FIR. Her statement to this effect has been recorded along with the statement of accused separately. The parties have also furnished their affidavit that neither any other case nor any criminal proceedings have been initiated against them.
As per the statement of the parties, they have entered into compromise out of their free will and with due deliberation without any pressure or coercion from any side. Copy of the statement recorded in the court of the parties along with copy of compromise deed and affidavits placed on record are enclosed herewith.
Above being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important that, arises for determination in this case is, as to whether the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereto deserve to be quashed in view of the compromise or not ?
Having regard to the contentions of learned counsel for parties, to me, it would be in the interest and justice would be sub-served, if the instant criminal prosecution is quashed and the parties are allowed to live in peace. Moreover, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that in view of the settlement of disputes between the parties, the criminal prosecution is liable to be quashed as per the compromise between the parties.
What cannot possibly be disputed 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 Apex Court in cases Shiji @ Pappu and others v. Radhika and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 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 means 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 cases, on the basis of lawful settlement. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgments "mutatis mutandis" is applicable in the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.
As is evident from the record that the parties have resolved their dispute at the intervention of their relatives, by virtue of compromise (Annexure P2), which is signed by them. Annexure P3 is the affidavit of complainant, wherein, she has reiterated the factum of compromise and she does not want to prosecute the petitioner. She has no objection, if the criminal prosecution is quashed. The factum of compromise finds further corroboration from the status report dated 6.3.2012 of the Magistrate. Therefore, the compromise is in their welfare and interest. Since the parties have lawfully agreed to settle the dispute, so, to my mind, 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. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR No. 417 dated 13.9.2011 (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed and the petitioner-accused is discharged from the indicated criminal case, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.