Crl. Misc. No.M-11327 of 2011 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-11327 of 2011 Date of decision: May 16, 2011. Jasbir Singh @ Jassi & Ors. ... Petitioner(s) v. State of Punjab & Anr. ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri R.S. Malhotra, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Shri J.S. Bhullar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. Shri Gautam Thapar, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that case FIR No.259 dated 25.12.2010, registered at Police Station Maqsudan, District Jalandhar, under Sections 324, 341, 326, 148, 149 IPC be quashed on the basis of compromise dated 6.4.2011 (Annexure P-2). This Court had directed the parties to appear before the trial court and the trial court was asked to verify the factum of compromise after examining the accused and the complainant/injured and thereafter submit a report. In compliance of the order dated 19.4.2011 passed by this Court, Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar has submitted its report, which reads as under:- “It is respectfully submitted that upon receiving the order of the Crl. Misc. No.M-11327 of 2011 -: 2 :- Hon'ble High Court, in criminal Misc. No.11327 of 2011, FIR No.259 dated 25.12.2010, under Sections 324, 341, 326, 148, 149 IPC, P.S. Maqsudan, Jalandhar, titled as Jasbir Singh @ Jassi and ors v. State of Punjab and anr. with regard to the validity of the compromise, the undersigned issued notices to the parties to compromise i.e. Complainant, eye witness as well as the accused and they have got recorded their statements in the court vide which complainant Satinder Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh suffered a separate statement to the effect that he has compromised the matter with the accused Jasbir Singh @ Jassi and others and the compromise has been effected with the intervention of the respectables and with his own free will and accord and without any pressure or undue pressure from any quarter and he has no objection if the above said FIR is quashed on the basis of compromise dated 6.4.2011. It is submitted that Sikander Mehta son of Dharampal eye witness has also got recorded his statement by reiterating the version of the complainant. It is further submited that accused Sukhwinder Pal, Ranbir Singh, Sukhbir Singh, Balbir Singh, Jasbir Singh have also got recorded their statements by reiterating the version as putforth by the complainant.” Today also, Shri Gautam Thapar has filed affidavit of the complainant. Shri Thapar has further stated that the present FIR and the subsequent proceedings be quashed in order to promote ever-lasting peace and harmony. I have heard Counsel for the parties. Crl. Misc. No.M-11327 of 2011 -: 3 :- Counsel for the petitioner-accused and the counsel for the complainant/respondent have stated that the parties have buried their hatchet and being co-villagers, they are having cordial relations and pendency of proceedings arising out of the above stated FIR is creating hurdles in restoration of the cordial relations. A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held 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 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. Crl. Misc. No.M-11327 of 2011 -: 4 :- 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 society or would promote savagery.” In the present case, factum of compromise has been verified by the trial court. For the sake of social harmony, amity and ever-lasting peace, this Court shall grant due credence to the compromise arrived at between Crl. Misc. No.M-11327 of 2011 -: 5 :- the parties. Taking totality of circumstances into consideration, including the ratio of law laid by a Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra), the present petition is accepted and the impugned FIR along with the subsequent proceedings is quashed. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] May 16, 2011. Judge kadyan