THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PEITION No.5472 OF 2011 ORDER: Petitioners-A1 and A2 and the 2nd respondent- complainant are present. Sri S.V.V.S.V.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri G.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, are present. 2. It is stated by both parties that the dispute has been resolved amicably out side the Court and they have entered into compromise and the 2nd respondent- complainant stated that in view of the compromise he is no more interested in pursuing the complaint given by him against the petitioners-A1 and A2 in Cr.No.123 of 2011 of Magalthur police station and he also filed an affidavit to the same effect. 3. In KULWINDER SINGH & OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER[1], a larger Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court held as follows: “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 litigation.” It was further held as follows: “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”. 6. In the light of the principles laid down in the above decision; in view of the compromise entered into between the parties, and also in view of the 2nd respondent’s unwillingness to proceed further with the complaint filed by him, it is considered that no useful purpose would be served by continuing further proceedings against the petitioiners-A1 and A2 Cr.No.123 of 2011 of Magalthur police station. 7. In the result, Criminal Petition is disposed of and further proceedings against the petitioners herein-A1 and A2 in Cr.No.123 of 2011 of Magalthur police station, are hereby quashed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 22nd July, 2011. Tsy [1] 2007(3) 818 All India Criminal Law Reporter