IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-34520 of 2010 Date of Decision: August 30, 2011 Surjit Kumar @ Sita .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. G.S. Gujral, Advocate, for respondent No.2. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. prays for quashing FIR No.77 dated 7.7.2010 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 336, 427 IPC and Sections 25(1) & 27 of the Arms Act, registered with Police Station, Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur, on the basis of compromise dated 23.10.2010 (Annexure P-3). 2. Vide order dated 6.1.2011, the case was referred Crl. Misc. No. M-34520 of 2010 [2] to the Trial Court to record statement of the parties. Report dated 24.1.2011 has been received from the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur, according to which, the complainant/ victim has given a statement that he does not want to pursue the case against the petitioner as the disputes have been settled by way of compromise recorded on 23.10.2010. 3. I have considered the issue. 4. It is a case of no injury. It appears that during a marriage, shots were fired in the air. On account of the fire-shots, there was some damage to the property. Victim has been compensated. Respondent No.2, Tilak Raj states that he would not be bringing any evidence to Court. 5. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, Kulwinder Singh & others vs. State of Pun- jab & another (Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-33016 of 2007, de- cided on 8.8.2007), has considered the issue whether the High court has the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal pro- ceedings or allow the compounding of the offences in the event of the parties entering into a compromise in the cases which have been specified as non-compoundable offences and in particular, in view of the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. The relevant portion of the judgment for the purpose of this case is contained in Para Nos.24, 27, 28, 29 and 30, which reads as under:- Crl. Misc. No. M-34520 of 2010 [3] “24. While parting with this part, it appears necessary to add that the settlement or compromise must satisfy the conscience of the court. The settlement must be just and fair besides being free from the undue pressure, the court must examine the cases of weaker and vulnerable victims with necessary caution........... 27. 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 any- thing, except to the caution and circumspection, the stan- dards 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 achieve the ends of justice. 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. 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, en- hances 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 mat- ters, 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 com- promise, 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 discus- sion 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 mat- rimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable of- fences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to se- cure 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 proc- ess of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list not the defined para-meters to enable a High Court to invoke Crl. Misc. No. M-34520 of 2010 [4] 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. This Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to main- tain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dis- pute 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 ab- horrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.” 6. Learned counsel for the State says that because the parties have entered into a compromise, the petition for quashing of FIR is not opposed. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in context of law, I am of the considered opinion that no purpose in law would be served by continuance of proceedings against the petitioner, rather it would be an exercise in futility. 8. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. FIR No.77 dated 7.7.2010 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 336, 427 IPC and Sections 25(1) & 27 of the Arms Act, registered with Police Station, Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur alongwith consequent proceedings, is hereby quashed. (AJAI LAMBA) August 30, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?