IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc.20948-M of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 5, 2008 JASWINDER SINGH @ BAGGA ETC. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Ms. Sushma Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. HS Brar, DAG, Punjab. Ms. Shivani Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, seeks quashing of FIR No.168 dated 13.5.2006 under Sections 452, 427, 506, 148, 149, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Nakodar, District Jalandhar (Annexure P-1), and subsequent proceedings, on the basis of compromise. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the parties have settled all their disputes by way of compromise and respondent No.2-complainant does not want to proceed with the Criminal Misc.20948-M of 2008 2 prosecution of the petitioners. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has endorsed the factum of compromise and has admitted that, indeed, the compromise (Annexure P-2) has been signed by respondent No.2-Amrit Preet Singh. So much so, an affidavit sworn by respondent No.2 on 14.8.2008 has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. 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- Criminal Misc.20948-M of 2008 3 ther, 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 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.” Having regard to the nature of offences; the petitioners and respondent No.2 are residents of the same area; all the disputes between the petitioners and respondent No.2 have been settled; respondent No.2, as identified by Ms.Shivani Sharma, Advocate, is present in Court, and has endorsed the factum of compromise and signing of Annexure P-2 and continuance of further proceedings shall not serve any legal purpose; the petition is allowed. FIR No.168 dated 13.5.2006 under Sections 452, 427, Criminal Misc.20948-M of 2008 4 506, 148, 149, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Nakodar, District Jalandhar (Annexure P-1), and subsequent proceedings, are quashed. September 5, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE