IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc.13995-M of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 5, 2008 SANJIV KUMAR @ SANJU ETC. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ETC. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. DS Gurna, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. HS Brar, DAG, Punjab. Mr. BS Saini, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, seeks quashing of FIR No.137 dated 1.6.2002 under Sections 406, 498-A, 148, 149, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Sadar Rajpura, District Patiala (Annexure P-1), and subsequent proceedings, on the basis of compromise. The factum of compromise is evident from compromise (Annexure P-2), which has also been signed by complainant-Meena Devi. Meena Devi has also sworn an affidavit endorsing the factum of compromise, which has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. In the affidavit, it has been stated that the complainant has received a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- as one time settlement and all the dowry articles/Istridhan have also been received by the complainant. Criminal Misc.13995-M of 2008 2 Learned counsel for the respondent-State 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 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 Criminal Misc.13995-M of 2008 3 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 disputes arose on account of matrimonial differences, whereupon the FIR came to be lodged; all the disputes have been resolved and the complainant has accepted money in lieu of all her rights; the complainant has sworn an affidavit and has also endorsed the factum of compromise by way of Annexure P-2 and continuance of proceedings shall not serve any legal purpose; the petition is allowed. FIR No.137 dated 1.6.2002 under Sections 406, 498-A, 148, 149, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Sadar Rajpura, District Patiala (Annexure P-1), and subsequent proceedings, are quashed. September 5, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE