1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence dated 29.1.1990, rendered by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide which it convicted Lal Chand and Vakil Chand, accused (now appellants), for the offences, punishable under Sections 326 and 324 Indian Penal Code, and sentenced Lal Chand, accused, to undergo RI for a period of three years, for the offence, punishable under Section 326Indian Penal Code, and sentenced Vakil Chand, accused, to undergo RI for a period of one year, for the offence, punishable under Section 324Indian Penal Code, for causing injuries on the person of Harmesh Lal @ Ramesh Kumar, Lekh Raj, and Karmo Bai.

2. During the pendency of appeal, the parties entered into a compromise, being closely related to each other, as Ram Kishan, author of the FIR, is the real brother of Lal Chand, appellant, and real uncle of Vakil Chand, appellant, who is the son of Lal Chand, and Ramesh Kumar, injured, is the real nephew of Lal Chand, appellant, and his mother Ram Piari, is the real sister of Lal Chand, whereas, Vakil Chand, is the cousin of Ramesh Kumar, injured. Vide compromise deed (Annexure A/1), it was stated by them, that the parties being nearly related to each other, have settled their dispute, and with a view to bring about better relations, between them, the compromise be accepted. The compromise (Annexure A/1), was also duly supported by the affidavits of Ram Kishan and Ramesh, (Annexure A/2) and (Annexure A/3) respectively. Thus, an application, under Section 482Criminal Procedure Code, for placing on record, the compromise, and acquitting the accused, was filed. In other words, vide application, under Section 482Criminal Procedure Code, the appellants sought quashing of the FIR, as also the conviction, and the order of sentence, recorded by the trial Court.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

4. The first question, that arises for consideration is, as to whether, the FIR, as also the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, could be quashed, in exercise of the power, under Section 482Criminal Procedure Code, or not. It was held in Abasaheb Yadav Honmane v. State of Crl. Appeal No.49-SB of 1990 3 Maharashtra 2008(3) All India Criminal Law Reporter 676, by a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court, that the power to compound, can be exercised at the trial stage, or even at the appellate stage. Similar principle of law was, laid down, in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2007(3) Law Herald 2225, by a Full Bench of this Court. Under these circumstances, relying upon the ratio of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, the proceedings, can be quashed, at the appellate stage, including the FIR, as also the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, recorded by the trial Court, if the facts and circumstances, of a particular case, so warrant.

5. In Kulwinder Singhs case (supra), while approving the minority view in Dharambir v. State of Haryana 2005(2) Law Herald (P&H)(FB) 723, a Bench of five Honble Judges, of this Court, concluded 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 482of the Criminal Procedure Code 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 v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others (1980) 1 SCC 63, [LQ/SC/1979/510 ;] ">(1980) 1 SCC 63, [LQ/SC/1979/510 ;] [LQ/SC/1979/510 ;] Honble 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 Criminal Procedure Code, or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482of the Criminal Procedure Code

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 482of the Criminal Procedure Code 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 matrters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482of the Criminal Procedure Code in the event of 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 Criminal Procedure Code, which can affect the inherent powers 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 320of the Criminal Procedure Code, in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.

32. The power under Section 482of the Criminal Procedure Code 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 parameters 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 482of the Criminal Procedure Code 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 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 everlasting 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."

6. Compromise in the modern society is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. As observed by Krishna Iyer J., the finest hour of justice arrives propitiously, when the parties despite falling apart, bury the hatchet, and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion. Inherent power of the Court, under Section 482Criminal Procedure Code, is not limited to matrimonial cases alone. The Court has wide powers to quash the proceedings, even in non-compoundable offences, in order to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice, notwithstanding the bar under Section 320Criminal Procedure Code Exercise of power, in a given situation, will depend on the facts of each case. They duty of the Court is not only to decide a lis between the parties after a protracted litigation. The Court is also a vital, and an extra-ordinary effective instrument, to maintain and control social order. Resolution of dispute by way of compromise between two warring groups, should be encouraged unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery, as held in Kulwinder Singhs case (supra).

7. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it may be stated that the parties to the lis are very closely related to each other. They have buried their hatchet, though at a belated stage. If the compromise is accepted, and the proceedings are quashed, it will go a long way, to create better relations, between them, and remove bitterness, which perpetuated for a long time. Thus, it is a fit case, warranting the exercise of power, under Section 482Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the FIR, conviction, and sentence, recorded by the trial Court.

8. Keeping in view the ratio of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, and applying the same, to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, in my considered opinion, once the matter has been compromised, by the parties, no useful purpose, shall be served by proceeding with the appeal, on merits, as that would amount to sheer wastage of time of the Court; harassment to the parties; and abuse of the process of Court. Even otherwise, the compromise is neither abhorrent to lawful composition of the society, nor would it promote savagery.

9. In view of the above, discussion, the petition, under Section 482Criminal Procedure Code, is accepted. Consequently, the FIR, as also the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, dated 29.1.1990, are set aside/quashed, resulting into the acceptance of appeal, and leading to the acquittal of the appellants.