IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-13360 of 2011 Date of decision: 20th May, 2011 Paramdeep Singh and another … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sandeep S. Majithia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Sra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the State. Mr. Puneet Singla, 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.69 dated 22.03.2011 registered at Police Station A Division, District Amritsar under Sections 457, 380, 427, 506, 148 and 149 IPC be quashed on the basis of a compromise. Maninder Singh complainant-respondent No.2 is present in Court. He has been identified by ASI Panna Lal, who is present in Court to assist counsel for the State. Complainant Maninder Singh in the FIR has stated that he is running a meat shop in the main market, Judge Nagar, Amritsar. This shop is with him on rent for the last 20 years. Owner of the shop namely Paramdeep Singh alias Sonu-petitioner No.1 and his companion Birinder Singh alias Raja-petitioner No.2 along with 10/12 unknown persons came armed with hammers and swords. They made a hole in the roof of the shop and demolished half of the roof. They Criminal Misc. No. M-13360 of 2011 also damaged the TV installed in the shop and took away an electronic computerized weighing machine. They had further damaged the articles lying in the shop. Mr.Sandeep S. Majithia, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has stated that they have sought forgiveness from the complainant-tenant and furthermore, he has been compensated in monetary terms. Mr.Majithia has further informed this Court that petitioner No.1-Paramdeep Singh has sold the shop to somebody else and respondent No.2 shall not be evicted from the shop except in due course of law. Maninder Singh complainant-respondent No.2, who is present in Court, has stated that the matter has been amicably resolved. The petitioners have paid Rs.1.50 lakhs to him and have compensated the loss caused to him. He has further been assured by the petitioners that he will not be evicted from the shop except in due course of law. Counsel for the State has also stated that since the dispute between the landlord and the tenant has been amicably resolved, the State will not stand in the way of parties if they intend to promote everlasting peace, amity and harmony. 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 2 Criminal Misc. No. M-13360 of 2011 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. 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.” 3 Criminal Misc. No. M-13360 of 2011 The Petitioners, who are present in Court, have assured this Court that henceforth they will act in accordance with the provisions of law and will not take the law into their own hands. They have also offered their apology in Court to the respondent No.2. For the sake of social harmony, amity and everlasting peace, this Court shall grant due credence to the compromise arrived at between the parties. Hence, taking totality of the circumstances into consideration, including the ratio of law laid down in Kulwinder Singh’s case (supra), present petition is accepted and the impugned FIR along with all subsequent proceedings is quashed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE May 20, 2011 rps 4