Mehinder Singh Sullar, J
1. The composition of the facts, relevant for disposal of the instant petition and emanating from the record is that in the wake of complaint of respondent, Ram Kumar son of Har Narain, a criminal case was registered against accused Ram Mehar and others by means of FIR No.73 dated 28.3.2000 (Annexure P-1) on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 427, 506 IPC by the police of Police Station Tauru, District Gurgaon [now District Mewat (Nuh)].
2. Sequelly, a cross case was also registered against Har Narain and others under Sections 323, 325 and 34 IPC arising out of the same occurrence. It was alleged that since the police did not register the case against all the accused, so complainant Har Narain son of Nathu Ram filed a private complaint (Annexure P-2) titled as Har Narain vs. Jhabbu and 26 other accused under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 506, 395, 324, 427, 394 IPC.
3. Taking cognizance of the complaint (Annexure P-2), Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nuh, summoned accused Nos.11 to 27 to the face of trial for the commission of indicated offences whereas the complaint, in regard to accused Nos.1 to 10, was dismissed on the ground of registration of FIR (Annexure P-1) against them, by way of impugned order dated 8.10.2003 (Annexure P-6).
4. Aggrieved by the summoning order (Annexure P-6), Chhotu son of Shera and other accused filed a revision petition bearing No.40 of 2003 which was dismissed as well by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon by virtue of order dated 7.5.2004 (Annexure P-7).
5. Petitioners Chhotu and others still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present petition for quashing impugned orders, Annexure P-6 and P-7, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. During the pendency of this petition, good sense prevailed between the parties and they have amicably settled their disputes before the Mediator of this Court on 9.12.2011 with the following terms and conditions:-
“(i) It has been agreed between all the parties that none of the parties shall have any objection for the closing/quashing of the above mentioned FIR, cross version and criminal complaint and entire subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of present compromise.
(ii) It has been further agreed between the parties that all the parties/persons shall file affidavit or make statement in respect of present compromise in this Hon’ble High Court or before the other Hon’ble Court or Ld. JMIC (Nuh) for the closing of the entire proceedings.
(iii) It has been further decided between the parties that after the closing of the instant complaint entire dispute which is the subject matter of the present complaint shall stands settled and no party will in any manner agitate or institute the same subject matter in any subsequent complaint or proceedings.
(iv) It has been further agreed between the parties that in case of necessity if, a quashing petition is filed in this Hon’ble High Court, all the parties shall be bound to make a statement or submit affidavit in this Hon’ble High Court for quashing of the above mentioned FIR and entire subsequent proceedings.
(v) It has been further decided between the parties that none of the parties shall not claim any damages or compensation etc. against each other in respect of the present complaint/subject matter and proceedings arising therefrom.
6. It has been further agreed between the parties that Sh. Om Parkash and etc shall donate an amount of Rs.51,000/- (Rupees Fifty One Thousand Only) Dada Bani Wala Mandir, village Kalwari on behalf of all the parties to the present compromise.
7. It has been further agreed between the parties both the parties shall make a prayer to this Hon’ble High Court for the closing of the instant case on the basis of present compromise.
8. This compromise has been reached between the parties without any pressure and both the parties have very happily agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement. Both the parties shall be bound with the terms and conditions of this compromise.
9. It has been further decided between the parties that in case of necessity, both the parties shall be free to present the copy of the above compromise before ay authority of court if the same is required to witness the execution of the compromise or to settle any pending controversy between the parties.
10. The parties have gone through the contents and the same have been explained to the parties and after admitting the same as correct, have put their respective signatures.
11. By signing this agreement the parties state that they have no further claims or demands against each other with respect to the subject matter being compromised today and all the disputes and differences in this regard have been amicably settled by the parties hereto through the process of Conciliation/Mediation.
12. That the parties undertake before the Hon’ble Court to abide by the terms and conditions set out in the agreement and not to dispute the same hereinafter in future.”
7. Meaning thereby, the parties have settled their disputes in the manner depicted hereinabove. More-over learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the impugned orders (Annexure P-6 and P-7) are liable to be quashed in view of the compromise.
8. Such being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important, arises for determination in this petition is as to whether impugned orders, Annexure P-6 and P-7 deserve to be quashed in view of compromise or not.
9. Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, having gone through record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to me, justice would be sub-served if the impugned orders, Annexure P-6 and P-7, are quashed and the parties are allowed to live in peace after the settlement of their disputes.
10. Sequelly, the law of settlement of criminal disputes by virtue of compromise is no more 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 and 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 vs. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052.
11. 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 cross-fights, on the basis of lawful settlement. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is fully attracted in the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.
12. As is evident from the record that in the instant case, the parties have lawfully settled their dispute before the Mediator, as per terms and conditions of compromise dated 9.2.2011 in the manner stated hereinabove. Therefore 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.
13. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, impugned orders dated 8.10.2003 (Annexure P-6) and 7.5.2004 (Annexure P-7) are set aside and the petitioners are accordingly discharged from the indicated case, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.