IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc.17124-M of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 11, 2008 DEEPINDER SINGH AND ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF U.T. CHANDIGARH & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Anshuman Dalal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. DD Sharma, Advocate, for UT Chandigarh. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing FIR No.232 dated 14.6.2005 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Sector 17, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that on intervention of respectables, both the sides have entered into a compromise. Compromise deed dated 12.7.2005 has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on instructions from SI Davinder Singh, states that, in fact, the parties have entered into a compromise and continuance of the proceedings would not serve any legal Criminal Misc.11911-M of 2008 2 purpose. 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 exer- cised 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 cir- cumstances 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 main- tain and control social order. The Courts play role of para- mount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-last- ing congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should Criminal Misc.11911-M of 2008 3 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 facts of the case that the parties have entered into a compromise, which stands recorded on the investigation file also, as has been stated by the learned counsel for the respondent-State, continuance of the proceedings would not serve any purpose. In view of the above, the petition is allowed, FIR (Annexure P-1) along with subsequent proceedings, is quashed. August 11, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE