JUDGMENT Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. Oral:- The husband/petitioner No.1, father-in-law/petitioner No.2 and mother -in-law/petitioner No. 3 of complaint-respondent No.2 have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity ‘the Code’) for quashing of FIR No. 215 dated 30.12.2005, under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Model Town, Ludhiana, on the ground that the dispute between the parties has since been resolved by way of a compromise. 2. It has been averred in the petition that the marriage of the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was solemnised on 7.12.2001 and out this wedlock, a son, namely, Jashanpreet Singh was born on 25.11.2002. But due to temperament differences between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, they could not adjust with each other. Respondent No.2 lodged the FIR, quashing of which has been sought in this petition, against the petitioners on the averments that the petitioners are very greedy persons and they had given beatings and maltreatment to her due to insufficient dowry. A copy of the FIR has been attached as Annexure P-1. 3. The petitioners have now filed this petition for quashing of the FIR on the ground that the petitioners and respondent No.2 have entered into a compromise and she does not want to pursue the criminal proceedings against the petitioners as the dispute has since been settled between them. Affidavit of Amanpreet Kaur-respondent No.2 has been taken on record in support of the statement made by her before this Court and the same is marked as ‘A’. A copy of the compromise has been attached as Annexure P-2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, [2007(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) (FB) 2225] : 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and submitted that in the light of this enunciation, since the dispute has been compromised between the parties, this Court has wide power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the FIR in question and subsequent proceedings even in a non-compoundable offence. According to the learned counsel this can be done notwithstanding the bar created by Section 320 of the Code, in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure ends of justice. 5. According to the learned counsel this can be done notwithstanding the bar created by Section 320 of the Code, in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure ends of justice. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has raised no objection to the quashing of the FIR in question on the basis of the compromise, which has been entered into between the parties. Learned State counsel has also no objection to the quashing of the FIR in view of the compromise. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. 7. Statement of Amanpreet Kaur-respondent No.2 was recorded separately wherein she has stated that she has entered into a compromise with the petitioners and now there remains no dispute with them. In support of her statement, she has also filed her duly sworn affidavit dated 10.07.2008, which is marked as ‘A’. 8. The question whether the parties can enter into a compromise in a non-compoundable offence has now been settled by the Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh’s case (supra). The observations of the Full Bench recorded in paras-28, 29 and 30 of its judgment can advantageously be noticed here, which read as under:­ “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 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. 36.’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. 36.’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 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 endeavor to give full effect to the same unless such compromise in abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.” 9. In view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh’s case (supra) and in order to meet the ends of justice, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question as well as the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, as the parties have compromised the dispute. --------------------