IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc.20990-M of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : OCTOBER 21, 2008 NANAK CHAND & ANR. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. HS Brar, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Sidarath Sarup, AAG, Haryana. Mr. AK Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing of FIR No.133 dated 5.5.2008 under Sections 406, 420, 506, 34, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Pehowa, District Kurukshetra, on the basis of compromise. When the matter came up for hearing on 17.10.2008, the following order was passed:- “This petition has been filed under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing of FIR No.133 dated 5.5.2008 under Sections 406, 420, 506, 34, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Pehowa, District Kurukshetra, on the basis of compromise. Criminal Misc.20990-M of 2008 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in view of the compromise, respondent No.2- complainant/Kulwant Kaur has sworn an affidavit, which has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. I have considered the contents of the FIR, which alleges that the petitioners-accused had promised to send Baljinder Singh, son of the complainant, to German and in that context had taken a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- by way of fraud and cheating. Neither Baljinder Singh was sent abroad nor the money was returned. In the affidavit sworn by Kulwant Kaur, it has been mentioned that the petitioners had not been paid any money by her. Kulwant Kaur, complainant, as identified by Shri A.K.Sharma, Advocate, is present in court. On a specific query of the court, Kulwant Kaur has stated that she or her family has not been paid the amount that had been taken by the petitioners on the premise of sending Baljinder Singh abroad. She further states that it is on the intervention of the Panchayat that she was making the statement and would prefer to receive the money paid to the petitioners-accused. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for time to take instructions on the issue. Prima facie, I am satisfied that the complainant has neither willingly sworn the affidavit nor has entered into a compromise. Adjourned to 21.10.2008.” Kulwant Kaur, respondent No.2-complainant, as identified by her counsel Shri A.K. Sharma, is present in court and states that she would be satisfied if a sum of Rs.5,50,000/-, the amount that was taken by way of deceit by the accused, is repaid to her. The petitioners have paid a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- in cash, in Criminal Misc.20990-M of 2008 3 court, to respondent No.2, which has been accepted by respondent No.2 in full and final settlement of all her claims. Accordingly, respondent No.2 has made a statement that she does not want to prosecute the petitioners and does not want to pursue the trial as a consequence of the case registered at her instance. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has no objection to the quashing of the FIR, on the basis of compromise. This Court in a full Bench (5 Judges) 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 Criminal Misc.20990-M of 2008 4 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 view of the nature of controversy i.e. the same being in regard to the monetary transaction; statement having been made by respondent No.2; a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- having been paid to respondent No.2 in cash, in court; continuance of proceedings shall not serve any legal purpose. Rather, continuance of proceedings shall disturb peace and harmony. The petition is allowed. FIR No.133 dated 5.5.2008 under Sections 406, 420, 506, 34, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Pehowa, Criminal Misc.20990-M of 2008 5 District Kurukshetra, and subsequent proceedings are quashed. October 21, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE