RAM ROOP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for brevity, the Code), petitioners, the accused in First Information Report (for short, FIR) No. 282, dated 26.12.2005, under Sections 323, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC), registered at Police Station Agroha, District Hisar, seek quashing of the FIR saying that the matter has been amicably settled between them and the Complainant/Victim as evidenced by the deed of compromise and joint affidavit of complainant, witnesses and petitioners dated 30.7.2013, Annexures P3 & P4 respectively.

(2.) WHILE issuing notice of motion, 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 15.11.2013, affirming that the compromise is outcome of free will and consent of the parties and is free from any undue influence/pressure/coercion. The Complainant/Victim also has no objection if the FIR and proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. From the above it is established that parties to the lis have resolved the inter se dispute amicably in order 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(Crl.) 1052:2007(3) PLR 439:2007(2) ILR (Punjab) 338:2007(3) AICLR 818:2007(4) CCR 280:2007(59) AIC 435:2007(4) CTC 769: 2007(4) KLT

(3.) IT is anybody's guess that after the parties having entered into a compromise, possibility of the trial resulting into conviction of the accused is remote and bleak and that being so continuation of criminal proceedings would visit the accused with great oppression, prejudice and extreme injustice. Rather it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice, or say abuse of the process of the Court, if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue. Ends of justice would be met only if the criminal proceedings are put to an end because this would allow the parties to translate their desire to live in peace into reality. The only consideration for the compromise reached between the parties seems to be their desire to bury the hatchet for all times to come. The compromise is also found to be in the interest of public at large, for, it will add to the peace of the society and will promote peaceful co -existence. The Courts are bound to 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 the 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