IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc.17529-M of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 SQUADRON LEADER ROBINDERA SINGH ZENDA ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS U.T. CHANDIGARH & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr.Raman Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr.Ram Pal Verma, Advocate, for Mr.Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, UT Chandigarh. Mr. Anuj Raura, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, seeks quashing of FIR No.397 dated 10.12.2004 under Sections 406, 498- A, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Sector 36, Chandigarh, and subsequent proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on account of matrimonial differences between Kirandeep Kaur (respondent No.2- complainant) and the petitioner, the present FIR came to be lodged. The parties, however, have settled all their disputes. Respondent No.2 has received a sum of Rs.10 lacs towards full and final settlement of all her claims arising out of her matrimonial alliance. So much so, the parties have Criminal Misc.17529-M of 2008 2 filed a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, for divorce by mutual consent. The petitioner, as identified by Shri Raman Mahajan, Advocate, is present in Court. The petitioner states that he shall be bound by the terms of compromise and shall make a statement on the date fixed in support of the petition for divorce by mutual consent. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant, on his part, has assured the Court that respondent No.2 would abide by the terms of compromise, she already having received Rs.10 lacs in satisfaction of all her claims. 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- Criminal Misc.17529-M of 2008 3 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- 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 fact that there were matrimonial differences between the parties, on account of which the FIR was lodged; Criminal Misc.17529-M of 2008 4 all the disputes between the parties have already been settled and respondent No.2 has already received a sum of Rs. 10 lacs in full and final settlement of all her claims arising out of the matrimonial alliance; the parties have filed a joint petition seeking divorce by way of mutual consent; the petitioner, who is present in court, has given an undertaking that he shall give his statement in the court supporting the petition for divorce by mutual consent and respondent No.2 has also agreed to abide by the terms of compromise, this petition is allowed. FIR No.397 dated 10.12.2004 under Sections 406, 498-A, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Sector 36, Chandigarh, and subsequent proceedings, are quashed. September 16, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE