Crl. Misc. No.M-35213 of 2009 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-35213 of 2009 Date of decision. 17.02.2010 1. Dalbir Singh, 2. Gurmit Singh sons of Kartar Singh, 3. Kartar Singh s/o Hem Singh, 4. Smt. Charan Kaur w/o Kartar Singh, All rs/o village Lalpur Tehsil and District Tarn Taran. ....... Petitioners Versus 1.State of Punjab, 2.Sukhdev Singh s/o Hira Singh, r/o village Vain Poin, Tehsil Khandoor Sahib District Tarn Taran. ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present:- Mr. H.S. Baath, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. T.S. Salana, DAG, Punjab for respondent no.1-State. Mr. Bikramjit Arora, Advocate for respondent No.2. -- Sham Sunder, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing criminal complaint No.387 Crl. Misc. No.M-35213 of 2009 --2-- dated 4.9.2004/20.12.2006, titled as Sukhdev Singh v. Dalbir Singh and others, under Sections 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 354, 506 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (Annexure P-1) and the summoning order dated 23.10.2007( Annexure P-2), rendered by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn Taran, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, has been filed by the petitioners. 2. The Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the parties have amicably settled the matter, on the basis of the Compromise, (Annexure A). He has further submitted that after the said compromise, no dispute, subsists between the parties. He has further submitted that, with a view to prevent the abuse of process of Court, and in the interest of justice, the complaint aforesaid, be quashed. He also placed reliance on Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2007(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2225, a judgment delivered by a Full Bench of this Court. 3. The Counsel for respondent no.2, did not dispute the submission of the Counsel for the petitioners. He also reiterated that the parties have settled the matter amicably, on the basis of compromise,aforesaid. He further submitted that,if on the basis of compromise, referred to above, the complaint is quashed, it would prevent the abuse of process of Court; harassment to the parties, and create better relations, between Crl. Misc. No.M-35213 of 2009 --3-- them. 4. In Kulwinder Singh's case (supra), while approving the minority view in Dharambir Vs. State of Haryana 2005(2) Law Herald (P&H)(FB) 723, a Bench of five Hon'ble Judges, of this Court, concluded as under : “27. To conclude, it can safely be said that there can never be any hard and fast category which can be prescribed to enable the Court to exercise its power under Section 482, of the Cr.P.C. The only principle that can be laid down is the one which has been incorporated in the Section itself i.e. “to prevent abuse of the process of any Court” or “to secure the ends of justice”. 28. In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney Vs. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others (1980) 1 SCC 63, Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the essence of compromise in the following words :- “The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.” 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 Crl. Misc. No.M-35213 of 2009 --4-- achieve the ends of justice. 29. 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. 30. 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 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. 31. 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 powers 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 Crl. Misc. No.M-35213 of 2009 --5-- 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice. 32. 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 parameters 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 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.” 5. Keeping in view the ratio of law, laid down, in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra), and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, in my considered opinion, once the matter has been compromised, by the parties, Crl. Misc. No.M-35213 of 2009 --6-- no useful purpose, shall be served by proceeding with the prosecution, as that would amount to sheer wastage of the time of the Court; harassment to the parties, and abuse of the process of the Court. Even otherwise, the compromise is neither abhorrent to lawful composition of the society, nor would it promote savagery. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, is accepted. Criminal complaint No.387 dated 4.9.2004/ 20.12.2006, titled as Sukhdev Singh v. Dalbir Singh and others, under Sections 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 354, 506 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (Annexure P-1), the summoning order dated 23.10.2007( Annexure P-2), rendered by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn Taran, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed, qua the petitioners. 17.02.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) dinesh JUDGE