Daya Chaudhary, J.The present petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of petitioner, namely, Lalli Athwal for quashing of FIR No. 39 dated 11.3.2013 registered under Sections 354/341/506/148/149 IPC at Police Station City Samana, District Patiala and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.

2. Vide order dated 17.1.2014, parties were directed to appear before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana for getting their respective statements recorded with regard to compromise. The learned Magistrate was also directed to submit a report along with statements of the parties.

3. In response to the directions issued by this Court, a report has been received from Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana, which is on record. It has been mentioned in the report that the statements have been recorded and Court is satisfied with the compromise arrived at between the parties. In the statements of the petitioner as well as respondents No. 2 to 4 it has been mentioned that the compromise has been effected with intervention of the respectables. Respondents No. 2 to 4 have specifically stated in their respective statements that they do not want to proceed against petitioner-Lalli Athwal.

4. In Kulwinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, the Larger Bench of our own High Court has held that the High Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings eve in non-compoundable offences, notwithstanding the bar u/s 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code in order to prevent abuse of the process any Court or to secure the ends of justice. In Kulwinder Singhs case, the Larger Bench has also observed:-

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 u/s 482 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 u/s 482 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.

5. The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, emphasized in para No. 6 as follows:-

6. We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.

6. Honble the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, in para 6 and 11, held as under:-

6. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, this Court with reference to Bhajan Lals case observed that the guidelines laid therein as to where the court will exercise jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code could not be inflexible or laying rigid formulae to be followed by the courts. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is well settled that these powers have no limits. Of course, where there is more power, it becomes necessary to exercise utmost care and caution which invoking such powers.

11. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Others Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Others, it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing u/s 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appears in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings.

7. Since the dispute between the parties has been settled by way of compromise and now respondents No. 2 to 4 have no objection, if the present petition is allowed and the FIR, in question, is quashed, I am of the considered view that continuation of impugned criminal proceedings between the parties would be an exercise in futility.

8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and impugned criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 39 dated 11.3.2013 registered under Sections 354/341/506/148/149 IPC at Police Station City Samana, District Patiala along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner-Lalli Athwal are quashed.