IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.8022 -M of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : MAY 06, 2010 HARKESH SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. SS Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl.AG, Punjab. Ms. Charanjit Kaur, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for quashing of case FIR No.1 dated 1.1.2008 under Sections 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station, Dirba, District Sangrur (Annexure P- 1). Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that with the intervention of respectables, all the disputes between respondent No.2/complainant-Tek Singh and the petitioner have been settled by way of amicable settlement, which has been reduced into writing and placed on record as Annexure P-2. Criminal Misc. No.8022 -M of 2010 2 Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has filed reply by way of affidavit of Tek Singh today in court, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that the factum of compromise is endorsed by Tek Singh. Tek Singh, as identified by Ms. Charanjit Kaur, Advocate, is present in court, and states that he does not want to pursue the FIR case. 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 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 Criminal Misc. No.8022 -M of 2010 3 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.” Tek Singh would be the victim and the affected person. Since, Tek Singh is not ready to pursue the case, no purpose, in law, would be served by continuance of the proceedings. The petition is, accordingly, allowed in the interest of justice. FIR No.1 dated 1.1.2008 under Sections 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station, Dirba, District Sangrur (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings are quashed. May 06, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?