Crl. Misc. No.M-11682 of 2011 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-11682 of 2011 Date of decision: May 18, 2011. Ashok Kumar Saini ... Petitioner(s) v. State of Haryana & Anr. ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Devinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Shri Sandeep S. Mann, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.1. Shri Suresh Kumar Redhu, Advocate, for the respondent No.2. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.75 dated 16.2.2009, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak, under Sections 420, 406, 120-B, 506 IPC, on the basis of compromise Annexure P-3. FIR in the present case was lodged on the statement made by Daya Parkash, complainant – respondent No.2. It is stated that the accused Ashok Kumar Saini met the complainant on 7.6.2006 and promised that in lieu of Rs.2.50 lacs, son of the complainant can be appointed as Supervisor in Nirman Bhawan, Delhi or in the office of Delhi Metro. It is further stated that on 20.6.2006 in the presence of witnesses Rs.2.50 lacs were handed Crl. Misc. No.M-11682 of 2011 -: 2 :- over to Ashok Kumar Saini. It is stated that thereafter the accused has not kept promise and thus, cheated him and caused loss of Rs.2.50 lacs. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that on the intervention of the members of the Panchayat and other respectables, a compromise Annexure P-3 was arrived at on 27.3.2009 and accused has returned the whole amount taken from the complainant – respondent No.2. Along with the petition, affidavit Annexure P-2 has been annexed. This affidavit vouchsafes that compromise has been arrived at between the parties. Daya Parkash is today present in Court. He has been identified by his Counsel, Shri Suresh Kumar Redhu. A reply on behalf of respondent No.2 has been also filed by the Counsel. In the reply it is stated that the compromise has also been arrived and complainant/ respondent No.2 has no objection in case the present FIR is quashed. Shri Sandeep S. Mann, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, has placed on record the reply filed by Sumit Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, on behalf of respondent No.1, and para No.3 of which reads as under:- “That on dated 1.4.2009 complainant Daya Parkash appeared in the Hon'ble Court of Shri R.C. Godara, Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak and gave statement that the family member of the accused Ashok Kumar Saini returned my money. The Hon'ble Court directed the Investigating Officer to record the statement of the complainant. The complainant furnished an affidavit and the panchayati compromise dated 27.3.2009 where the Investigating Officer found the signature of the complainant and the brother of the accused and two witnesses, namely, Sita Ram H/66, B.K. Dutt Colony, Karble Lodhi Crl. Misc. No.M-11682 of 2011 -: 3 :- Colony, N.D. 3 and Dr. Udey Bhan Singh, 651/9 Azad Garh, Rohtak. In the affidavit and panchayati compromise, the brother of the accused mentioned that all the money taken by the accused has been returned to the complainant and now no transaction of any type has been remained. True translated copy of the affidavit and the panchayati decision is attached as Annexure R-1 and Annexure R-2.” Shri Mann has further submitted that it was a money transaction between the parties and in case the dispute has been amicably resolved and money has been returned, State will not stand in the way of the parties to bury their differences. 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-11682 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-11682 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.” In view of the above, the present petition is accepted and the impugned FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] May 18, 2011. Judge kadyan