IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc.12469-M of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : NOVEMBER 26, 2008 DEEPAK GOYAL ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Narender Sura, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, seeks quashing of FIR No.117 dated 27.5.2003 under Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 506, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Dharuhera, District Rewari (Annexure P-1). Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was married to respondent No.2/complainant. On account of matrimonial differences, the FIR came to be lodged. In regard to the marriage, even a divorce petition was filed by the petitioner, which was allowed. An appeal was carried by respondent No.2 in this Court, the same being F.A.O. No.81-M of 2007. In view of compromise, even the FAO has been Criminal Misc.12469-M of 2008 2 disposed of vide order dated 1.10.2008. Respondent No.2/wife, in terms of the compromise, has accepted the decree of divorce. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that in view of the compromise, the FIR and the proceedings be quashed as continuance of the proceedings shall not allow the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 to settle in their respective lives. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has endorsed the factum of compromise as also dismissal of aforesaid FAO, in view of the compromise between the parties. Learned counsel for the respondent-State states that the State would have no objection to the quashing of the FIR, on the basis of compromise. I have considered the issue. The compromise deed has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. It has been stated that respondent-Sarita has received Rs.6,75,000/- in lieu of full and final payment towards her maintenance and permanent alimony. She has further stated that she would not claim anything towards maintenance and alimony in future also. In the compromise itself, it has been stated that the FIR was lodged on account of a misunderstanding and the complainant has no grievance against the petitioner or his family members. This Court in a full Bench (5 Judges) has considered the issue of quashing of proceedings in view of compromise in Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR(Criminal) 1052 (Full Bench). The following has been held in paras 28 to 30:- Criminal Misc.12469-M of 2008 3 “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 Cr.P.C is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the so- cial 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 Cr.P.C 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 ab- sence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventuali- ties 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 Cr.P.C which can af- fect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Fur- ther, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice. 30. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C 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 Cr.P.C 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 Criminal Misc.12469-M of 2008 4 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.” In view of the fact that the FIR came to be lodged on account of matrimonial differences; all the disputes have been settled by way of compromise (Annexure P-2); the complainant has received Rs.6,75,000/- in lieu of all her dues against maintenance and permanent alimony; the parties are now divorced and even the FAO has been withdrawn by respondent No.2 in view of compromise, continuance of proceedings shall not serve any legal purpose. It shall, rather, vitiated the peaceful atmosphere. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. FIR No.117 dated 27.5.2003 under Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 506, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Dharuhera, District Rewari (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings are quashed. November 26, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE