IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc.24676-M of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 25, 2008 MANGAT SINGH @ MANGAL SINGH & ANR. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. JBS Gill, Advocate, and Mr.Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, seeks quashing of FIR No.108 dated 29.7.2007 under Sections 406, 498A, 313, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there were matrimonial disputes between Mangat Singh alias Mangal Singh son of Rajinder Singh (petitioner No.1) and Neelam Kumari (complainant- respondent No.2). There is no issue. On account of the differences between the couple, the FIR (Annexure P-1) came to be lodged. With the Criminal Misc.24676-M of 2008 2 intervention of respectables, a compromise dated 31.7.2007 (Annexure P- 2) has been effected. The couple have decided to part ways. Notice of motion. On the asking of the court, Mr. H.S. Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and Mrs. Avinash Mandla, Advocate, who are present in Court, accept notices on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, respectively. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant has endorsed the factum of compromise. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on instructions from HC Balkaran Singh, states that the factum of compromise has been verified. Indeed, the parties have settled all their disputes. Learned counsel for the respondent-State further states that he 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 Criminal Misc.24676-M of 2008 3 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 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 matrimonial dispute between petitioner No.1 and respondent Criminal Misc.24676-M of 2008 4 No.2-complainant; compromise (Annexure P-2) has been effected; counsel for respondent No.2-complainant has endorsed the factum of compromise and the respondent-State has no objection to the quashing of the FIR, on the basis of compromise, this petition is allowed. FIR No.108 dated 29.7.2007 under Sections 406, 498A, 313, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings are quashed. September 25, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE