- (1.) BY way of this petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, the Code), petitioners seek quashing of Criminal Complaint No.169/1 of 2009 filed by the complainant/respondent No.2, arraigning the present petitioners as accused therein, summoning order dated 30.11.2011 (Annexure P -4) and all other proceedings arising therefrom.
(2.) IN the criminal complaint, Annexure P -3, it was alleged by complainant/respondent No.2 that the petitioners had an evil eye on the land of Dharamshala of Balmiki Community and wanted to amalgamate it into the site meant for construction of water tank. On 02.08.2006 at about 11:30 a.m., the petitioners were alleged to have forcibly tress -passed into the land of Dharamshala and, even, demolished the wall of the same with the help of a tractor trolly. They also picked up bricks from the spot. When the complaint/respondent No.2 tried to intervene, he was threatened by the petitioners. Even modesty of complainant's wife was tried to be outraged. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, the petitioners have been summoned to face trial, vide order dated 30.11.2011 (Annexure P -4), passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nakodar. Now, as per deed of compromise (Annexure P -6), with the intervention of the respectables of the society, the parties to the litigation have resolved to live in peace and tranquility. During the pendency of the petition, petitioners have placed on record compromise deed dated 22.01.2014 (Annexure P -6). While taking on record said compromise deed, vide order dated 27.01.2014, the trial Court was asked to record statements of the parties concerned to find out if the compromise is outcome of free will and consent of the parties and is free from any undue influence/pressure/coercion. The trial Court has submitted a report dated 15.02.2014 affirming that the compromise is outcome of free will and consent of the parties and is free from any undue influence/pressure/coercion.
(3.) COMPLAINANT /respondent No.2 has been duly served. He even appeared earlier before this Court but has chosen not to come present today. By doing so, he has impliedly exhibited his intention not to oppose the quashing of the afore -stated criminal complaint, summoning order and all other proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise. State Counsel also has no objection if the petition is accepted. From the above it is established that the parties to the lis have resolved their inter se dispute amicably and have resolved to live in peace and harmony. Reference may be made to a Five -Judges Bench decision of this Court in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007 3 RCR(Cri) 1052, wherein it has been held as under: "27. The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted by distorted perceptions and is not a slave to anything, except to the caution and circumspection, the standards of which the Court sets before it, in exercise of such plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it while donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of justice. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the Criminal Procedure Code, or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 28. The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is "finest hour of justice". Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord -tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation. 29. The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Criminal Procedure Code which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in noncompoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice. 30. The power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is to be exercised Ex -Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para -meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restraint. 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. 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.";