The main legal point established is the wide powers of the Court to quash proceedings even in non-compoundable offences to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice, based on the principles laid down in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra).

Rajesh Bindal, J

1. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of cross version recorded on the statement of Gurnam Singh, respondent no. 2, in FIR No. 328 dated 3.11.2006, registered at Police Station Sadar Hoshiarpur under Sections 323, 324, 325, 326, 34 IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising there from.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties has been compromised with the intervention of the well-wishers and keeping in view that peace and harmony is maintained in the village. The compromise deed has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. The private respondents have also filed reply in this regard. He further submitted that once all the disputes between the parties have been settled as per compromise, the cross-version and the FIR in question deserve to be quashed. Reliance has been placed upon a five Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh versus State of Punjab 2007 (3) Law Herald (P&H) 2225.

3 Respondent No.3, who is the power of attorney of respondent No. 2, had appeared in Court in person, admitted the factum of compromise between the parties and stated that he has no objection in case the FIR and the cross-version in question is quashed. He has made a statement to this effect in the court also.

4. Dealing with issue of quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise, a Bench consisting of five Hon'ble Judges of this Court in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra) while approving minority view in Dharambir v. State of Haryana, 2005 (2) Law Herald (P&H) (FB) 723, opined as under :-

“27. To conclude, it can safely be said that there can never be any hard and fast category which can be prescribed to enable the Court to exercise its power under Section 482, of the Cr.P.C. The only principle that can be laid down is the one which has been incorporated in the Section itself, i.e., “to prevent abuse of the process of any Court” or “to secure the ends of justice”.

28. In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney Versus Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, (1980) 1 S.C.C. 63, Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the essence of compromise in the 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 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 anything, except to the caution and circumspection, the standards 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.

29. 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.

30. 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 of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation.

31. 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