IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.32928 -M of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : MAY 12, 2010 ARVIND MEHTA & ANR. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS SHALINI MEHTA & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. JS Panwar, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl.AG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for quashing of Criminal Complaint No.576/1 dated 18.5.2007 (Annexure P-1) entitled 'Shalini Mehta v. Arvind Mehta and others', for commission of offences under Sections 406, 498-A, 506, 34, Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana. Challenge is also to order of summoning dated 29.7.2008 (Annexure P-2), whereby the petitioners have been summoned to stand trial Criminal Misc. No.32928 -M of 2009 2 for commission of offences under Sections 406, 498-A, 506, 34, Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that respondent No.1-complainant got married to Arvind Mehta (petitioner No.1). On account of matrimonial disputes, the complaint came to be filed. The disputes between the petitioners and respondent No.1 have been settled. A petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent has already been allowed, vide judgment and decree dated 15.2.2010. Respondent No.1 has been duly compensated in lieu of all her rights arising out of the matrimony. Ms.Shalini (respondent No.1), as identified by Shri J.S. Parmar, Advocate, is present in court. It has been stated on behalf of respondent No.1 that, indeed, all the disputes between the parties have been settled. Respondent No.1 has received money in lieu of all her rights arising out of the matrimony and, therefore, respondent No.1 does not want to pursue the complaint. I have considered the issue. A Full Bench (5 Judges) of this Court 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 Criminal Misc. No.32928 -M of 2009 3 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 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.” Since, respondent No.1, who is the best witness and the victim, does not want to pursue the matter, it would be an exercise in futility, if the proceedings are allowed to continue. In the circumstances, keeping in view the interest of justice, peace and harmony, the petition is allowed. Criminal Complaint No.576/1 dated 18.5.2007 (Annexure P- 1) entitled 'Shalini Mehta v. Arvind Mehta and others', for commission of offences under Sections 406, 498-A, 506, 34, Indian Penal Code, pending Criminal Misc. No.32928 -M of 2009 4 in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, order of summoning dated 29.7.2008 (Annexure P-2) and subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed. May 12, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?