In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-6739 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:24.4.2009 Abhinav Kumar .....Petitioner v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and another .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Rohit Khanna, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pritpal Singh, Standing Counsel for U.T., Chandigarh. Mr. Hemant Saini, Advocate for respondent No.2. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.’ – for short) has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.496 dated 20.11.2008 (Annexure-P.1) registered at Police Station, Mani Majra for the offence under Section 452 Indian Penal Code (`IPC’ – for short) as well as the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C dated 10.1.2009 (Annexure-P.2) and the order dated 12.1.2009 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh. The quashing of the Cr. Misc. No.M-6739 of 2009 [2] same has been sought on the basis of compromise dated 26.2.2009 (Annexure-P.4) entered into by the parties. The FIR (Annexure P1) in the case has been registered on the statement of Bharat Bhushan (respondent No.2). It is alleged by the complainant that he was staying at House No.77, Shivalik Enclave, N.A.C., Chandigarh. On 19.11.2008, at night the petitioner, who was staying on the first floor of the said house along with others were making a lot of noise and shouting. At about 4.00 O’clock in the morning, they broke into the house of the complainant and created a scene there. The petitioner was apparently drunk and committed criminal trespass with the intention to harm the complainant. He tried to physically attack the complainant but was stopped by another boy Abhijit Chaturvedi and the wife of the complainant. With this state of his mind, he could have harmed any one physically. He may attack them again in order to settle scores. On the basis of the said allegations as contained in the FIR, the matter was investigated and charge-report (challan) has been filed in Court on 10.1.2009 (Annexure-P.2). Thereafter, charge (Annexure-P.3) for the offence under Section 452 IPC has been framed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class on 12.1.2009. However, no evidence has been led in the case. It is submitted that the petitioner is a youngman of about 22 years of age. His date of birth is 4.6.1986. At present he is pursuing his course in ACCA (Association of Chartered Certified Accountants). He is a senior student in the said course having passed 11 out of 15 papers. ACCA Cr. Misc. No.M-6739 of 2009 [3] is a UK based Accounting Professional Degree recognized in India. The petitioner along with his parents was in Zambia for the last 11 years and came to India at NOIDA in or around March 2008 to be with his grand- parents to avail better training avenues in India. He came to Chandigarh in August 2008 for coaching as faculty for his subjects was not available at Delhi at that time. For the said purpose, he tied up with Global Business School, a coaching centre for ACCA students in Mani Majra, Chandigarh which also provided him with accommodation. It is stated that the petitioner belongs to a good and respectable background. His father is a Senior Advertising professional, who just wound up his stay in Zamiba and has come back to India in January 2009. His mother is a HR professional came back from Zambia in December 2008. The petitioner had been staying at Chandigarh for completing his studies. It is submitted that due to misunderstanding on 20.11.2008 regarding the conduct of the petitioner, respondent No.2 made a complaint to the SHO, Police Station, Mani Majra, Chandigarh. Now in view of the compromise (Annexure-P.4), the FIR may be quashed. Reply has been filed by respondent No.2-complainant. It is accepted that the matter has been compromised with the intervention of friends, family members and other respectable and respondent No.2 has no objection to the quashing of the FIR. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the matter having been compromised, the FIR may be quashed. Learned counsel for the U.T. Administration has, however, opposed the quashing. It is submitted that the FIR in the case is not liable to Cr. Misc. No.M-6739 of 2009 [4] be quashed as charge in the case has been framed. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The allegations against the petitioner are that he entered the house of the complainant (respondent No.2) and created a scene. For the said conduct the petitioner has apologized. The parties have settled their dispute. It may be noticed that the nature of allegations are primarily that the petitioner had created a scene by entering the house of the complainant. The dispute, therefore, was purely personal in nature which has been resolved. It is well known that this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash proceedings even where the offences are not compoundable. The powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not limited or affected by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. In Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582, it was observes as follows: “We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” Cr. Misc. No.M-6739 of 2009 [5] A larger Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Cr.) 1052 (5 Judges) observed as follows: “The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted by distorted perceptions and is not a slave to anything, except to the caution and circumspection, the standards of which the Court sets before it, in exercise of such plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it while donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of justice. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.” In view of the above, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the impugned FIR and all consequential and subsequent proceedings in pursuance thereof are quashed. April 24, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*