Crl.Misc.No.M-15202 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-15202 of 2011 Date of Decision: 30 - 5 - 2011 Talwinder Singh and others .....Petitioners v. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.L.M.Gulati, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.B.S.Sra, Addl.A.G., Punjab. Ms.Niti Wadhawan, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. P raying for quashing of case FIR No.175 dated 11.7.2009 registered at Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar under Sections 323,506,427,452,148,149 IPC along with all subsequent proceedings arising thereto, on the basis of compromise, Annexure P2. In the present case, FIR was lodged by Sukhwinder Singh – respondent No.2. In the FIR, it was stated that on 8.7.2009, the accused- petitioners entered into the house of complainant-respondent No.2 and gave abuses and slap to him and while going back they broke the main gate. Crl.Misc.No.M-15202 of 2011 [2] Sukhwinder Singh complainant-respondent No.2 is present in Court. He has been identified by ASI Naunihal Singh, Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar who has come to assist counsel for the State. Counsel for the State has stated that the factum of compromise has been verified and indeed the parties have amicably resolved the dispute. Ms.Niti Wadhawan, counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has also stated that parties on the intervention of respectables of the locality have entered into a compromise in order to promote amity, harmony and everlasting peace. A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held under as under:- “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 social 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 absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a Crl.Misc.No.M-15202 of 2011 [3] litigation. 29. The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, 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 Crl.Misc.No.M-15202 of 2011 [4] society or would promote savagery.” Considering the fact that offencnes for which the petitioners are being prosecuted are trivial in nature and taking into account the ratio of law laid down in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra), the present petition is accepted. The impugned FIR along with all subsequent proceedings is quashed. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) May 30, 2011. JUDGE RC