Crl. Misc. No.M-12754 of 2011 and Crl. Misc. No.M-13184 of 2011 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Crl. Misc. No.M-12754 of 2011 Balbir Kumar @ Vicky ... Petitioner(s) v. State of Punjab & Ors. ... Respondent(s) 2. Crl. Misc. No.M-13184 of 2011 Pawan Kumar Sahota & Ors. ... Petitioner(s) v. State of Punjab & Anr. ... Respondent(s) Date of Decision: May 12, 2011. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Mandeep Sachdev, Advocate, for the petitioners (in Crl. Misc. No.M-12754 of 2011) Shri B.S. Sra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent-State. Shri Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners (in Crl. Misc. No.M-13184 of 2011) Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): By this common order Crl. Misc. No.M-12754 of 2011 (filed by Balbir Kumar @ Vicky v. State of Punjab & Others) and Crl. Misc. No.M- Crl. Misc. No.M-12754 of 2011 and Crl. Misc. No.M-13184 of 2011 -: 2 :- 13184 of 2011 (Pawan Kumar Sahota and others v. State of Punjab & Another) shall be decided together. In Crl. Misc. No.M-12754 of 2011, Balbir Kumar @ Vicky - the sole accused in case FIR No.29 dated 4.2.2011 registered at Police Station Division No.1, Jalandhar under Sections 323, 341, 506, 452 IPC, has sought quashing of the above stated FIR on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). In Crl. Misc. No.M-13184 of 2011, Pawan Kumar Sahota, Monu, Raj Kumar @ Raja (Pardhan), Yog Raj and Sunny have sought quashing of Cross Case registered in FIR No.29 dated 4.2.2011, under Sections 324, 326, 148, 149 IPC. In cross case, Balbir Kumar alias Vicky, petitioner in Crl. Misc. No.M-12754 of 2011, was injured. FIR No.29 dated 4.2.2011 was registered at the instance of Raj Kumar alias Raja. He stated that Balbir Kumar @ Vicky is his neighbour and on 2.2.2011, he entered into their house and caused injuries to him and Yog Raj. Whereas, in cross version, Balbir Kumar @ Vicky has stated that on 2.2.2011 at about 9.30 p.m., accused Pawan Kumar Sahota, Monu, Yog Raj and Sunny etc. caused him injuries. Now quashing of the FIR and cross version has been sought on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. Injured in the FIR case, Raja and Yog Raj are present. They have been duly identified by their Counsel, Shri Sandeep Arora whereas Balbir Kumar alias Vicky has been identified by his Counsel, Shri Mandeep Sachdev. Counsel for the parties have relied upon compromise Annexure P-2 annexed with Crl. Misc. No.M-12754 of 2011 and as Annexure P-3 in Crl. Misc. No.M-13184 of 2011. It is stated that the parties are neighbours. On the same day and at the same time, occurrence has taken place in which both the sides suffered injuries. Counsel for the parties have contended that now better sense has Crl. Misc. No.M-12754 of 2011 and Crl. Misc. No.M-13184 of 2011 -: 3 :- prevailed and the parties intend to promote ever-lasting peace, amity and harmony. It is stated that at present, parties are having cordial relations and pendency of FIR and cross version is causing impediment in the smooth relations. Shri B.S. Sra, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab has stated that State always intends to promote peace and harmony among its subjects and in case compromise has been arrived at between the parties, he has no objection to the quashing of the FIR. State Counsel, on instructions from HC Narinder Singh, PS Division No.1, Jalandhar, has stated that the Investigating Agency is already aware about the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties and same has been verified also. A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held under 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 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 Crl. Misc. No.M-12754 of 2011 and Crl. Misc. No.M-13184 of 2011 -: 4 :- 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 Crl. Misc. No.M-12754 of 2011 and Crl. Misc. No.M-13184 of 2011 -: 5 :- 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.” Considering the fact that the parties have amicably resolved their dispute, in view of the ratio of law laid down in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra), both the petitions are allowed and case FIR No.29 dated 4.4.2011 registered at P.S. Division No.1, Jalandhar and the cross version are quashed. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] May 12, 2011. Judge kadyan