JUDGMENT :

Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.

By means of the instant petition, the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been invoked seeking quashing of FIR No.183 dated 20.10.2021 under Sections 336 and 506 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station City Patti, District Tarn Taran and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 01.11.2021 (Annexure P-2) entered between parties.

2 Vide order dated 03.12.2021 of this Court, the parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate on 22.12.2021 to get their statements recorded regarding the compromise arrived at between the parties and a report in this regard was called for.

3. Pursuant to the said order, report has been received from the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patti vide Memo No.58 dated 19.01.2022. As per the report, compromise has indeed been effected between the parties and the same is without any pressure or coercion and out of their free will. The trial Court has annexed the statement of the parties along with its report

4. Learned State counsel does not dispute the factum of the compromise amongst the parties and does not have any serious objection to the resolution of the dispute amongst the parties.

5. Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate along with Ms. Manjit Kaur, Advocate appears on behalf of respondent No.2 and reiterates the settlement and his concurrence to the FIR and all the other consequential proceeding being quashed.

6. The Full Bench of this Court in the matter of “Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another” reported as (Punjab and Haryana High Court) : 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has been observed as under:

“(27) Shri R.S. Cheema, learned Senior Advocate, who assisted the Bench as Amicus Curiae, highlighted the inadequacies of the criminal justice system in order to propound and promote the principle that under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court can effectively exercise its power in an appropriate case and intervene to quash an F.I.R. even when the case discloses a non-compoundable offence and where the parties have voluntarily entered into a compromise. To illustrate, he submitted that the Legislature, in its wisdom, is seeking to introduce a pre-bargaining in the country and in this scenario, to curtail the power under Section 482 by reading into the provisions of law the non-existing lines would , indeed, be a travesty of justice, especially in view of the fact that there is a wide spread tendency in the society now to use the arm of criminal law to settle civil disputes and he reiterated certain contingencies which were also placed before the Bench during the course of hearing in Dharambir's case (supra). Some of the guidelines were as follows:

a. Cases arising from matrimonial discord, even if other offences are introduced for aggravation of the case.

b. Cases pertaining to property disputes between close relations, which are predominantly civil in nature and they have a genuine or belaboured dimension of criminal liability. Notwithstanding a touch of criminal liability, the settlement would bring lasting peace and harmony to larger number of people.

c. Cases of dispute between old partners or business concerns with dealings over a long period which are predominantly civil and are given or acquire a criminal dimension but the parties are essentially seeking a redressal of their financial or commercial claim.

d. Minor offences as under Section 279 IPC may be permitted to be compounded on the basis of legitimate settlement between the parties. Yet another offence which remains non- compoundable is Section 506(II) IPC, which is punishable with 7 years imprisonment. It is the judicial experience that an offence under Section 506 IPC in most cases is based on the oral declaration with different shades of intention. Another set of offences, which ought to be liberally compounded, are Sections 147 and 148 IPC, more particul