1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 9111--M of 2009 Date of Decision: 10.7.2009 *** Sachin Sood & Anr. .. Petitioners. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Sandeep Parmar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG Haryana. Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No. 445 dated 23.8.2008, got registered by respondent No.2 under Sections 380, 420 IPC at Police Station, Sector-5 Panchkula, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) entered between the parties The impugned FIR was got lodged by respondent No.2 with the averments that on 21.8.2008 she had gone for shopping, but lost her purse. When she contacted her Bank, she came to know that purchasing of Rs.8000/- was got done from her Debit Card. After registration of the FIR the matter was investigated upon and on finding the complicity of the petitioners in the alleged offence, they were booked in the impugned FIR. Now it has been contended that now with the intervention of respectables, both the parties have settled their dispute and the complainant has decided not to pursue the impugned FIR registered against the petitioners. Compromise (Annexure P-2) has also been placed on record. Learned counsel for the complainant while identifying the signatures of complainant on the compromise, authenticate the same and has pointed out that, as per instructions, the complainant has no objection if the 2 impugned FIR is quashed. In the reply filed on behalf of State although the prosecution has shown ignorance as to effecting of any compromise and have requested to take up the matter on merits, but by now it is fully settled that the High Court in exercise of inherent powers can quash the proceedings if it finds that allowing of any such proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court or that ends of justice require that the proceedings be quashed. In the case of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswami, AIR 1977 SC 1489, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the ends of justice are higher than ends of mere law, though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the legislature yet the Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In the case of Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya and others 1980(1) SCC 63, the essence of compromise has been summed up in following words:- “ The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.” The Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulvinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, while discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise, by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non- compoundable offence(s) 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 be dealt with by the Court by exercising its 3 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.” In the instant case, as emerges from record, the parties have mutually settled their dispute and have put to rest their litigation and the complainant, the star witness of the prosecution has since decided to withdraw from the prosecution, this Court is of the considered view that continuance of such a prosecution is nothing but an exercise in futility and sheer wastage of time of Court. Therefore, considering the aspect of settlement having arrived at between the parties, it is a fit case where interference of this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned FIR registered against the petitioners and all other subsequent proceedings therein are quashed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE July 10,2009 Jiten