IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc.17843-M of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 BISHWA NATH BEHRA ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. DD Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, seeks quashing of FIR No.31 dated 13.2.2004 under Sections 408, 420, 465, 468, 471, 191, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Sector 26, Chandigarh. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner was an employee of respondent No.2. There were some differences between the parties in regard to business transactions, on account of which the FIR came to be lodged. The entire amount due towards respondent No.2-complainant has, now, been paid by the petitioner Criminal Misc.17843-M of 2008 2 to the entire satisfaction of respondent No.2. An affidavit of respondent No.2 has been filed in court, which is taken on record. In the affidavit, there is a specific averment that the complainant does not want to continue with the FIR. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has no objection to the quashing of the FIR, on the basis of compromise. 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:- “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 Criminal Misc.17843-M of 2008 3 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 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.” Having regard to the fact that the FIR came to be lodged on account of monetary dispute; the dispute has already been resolved by way of compromise; the money due towards respondent No.2 has already been paid; the complainant has sworn an affidavit on 30.9.2008 to the effect that he does not want to continue with the proceedings and would have no objection if the FIR is quashed, continuance of proceedings would not serve any purpose in law. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. FIR No.31 dated 13.2.2004 under Sections 408, 420, 465, 468, 471, 191, Indian Penal Criminal Misc.17843-M of 2008 4 Code, Police Station, Sector 26, Chandigarh is quashed. September 30, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE