Judgment Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. 1. The conspectus of the facts, which need a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the present petition, is that on 10.01.2009, Dr. Sandeep (respondent No. 2). C.M.O., P.G.I.M.S. Rohtak was on his emergency duty. One person (petitioner-accused) inebriated condition came in the emergency ward having pain in his chest. Dr. Sandeep sent him to room No. 6, where he misbehaved with Dr. Paulomi used un-parliamentary language and obstructed her in discharging her official duties duties. when he was asked to apologize he again misbehaved with her. The matter was reported to the police. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the present case was registered against the petitioner accused, vide F.I.R. No. 15 dated 10.0 1.2009, on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 353 and 186 I.P.C. by the Station Urban Estate, Rohtak. 2. Having completed all the codal formalities, the trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner accused to face trail for the aforsaid offence and the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution. 3. During the pendency of the case, good sense prevailed and the parties have compromised the matter vide compromise-deed (Annexure P-2) signed by the concerned parties. They have settled their dispute with the intervention of the respectables of the society. Now, complainant-Dr. Sandeep Kumar and Dr. Paulomi have no grudge against the petitioner-accused. 4. That being so, the petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the F.I.R. (Annexure P-l.) and all subsequent proceedings thereto on the basis of settlement, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter-alia. pleading that they have resolved their disputes on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) 5. Above being the position on record, now the sole question arises for determination in this petition is as to whether the F.I.R. deserves to be quashed in this respect or not? 6. Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to me, justice would be sub- served if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter in this relevant context. 7. The law of settlement of criminal disputes by virtue of compromise is not res Integra and is well settled. 7. The law of settlement of criminal disputes by virtue of compromise is not res Integra and is well settled. The clear and explicit intention of the Legislature in this context was transformed in reality by Honble Apex Court in cases Manoj Sharma v. State & Ors., 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 827; B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, 2003 (2) RCR (Crl.) 888 (SC) and Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052. 8. The epitome of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is that the power under section 482 Cr.P.C. has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The Court in 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 and 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 if the statement is fair being free from under pressure. Meaning thereby, the High Court has unlimited power to quash the criminal proceedings. relatable to such like cases, on the basis of lawful settlement. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgments "mutatis mutandis" is fully attracted in the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 9. As is evident from the record that in the instant case, as the parties have lawfully agreed to settle the dispute, therefore, to my mind, there is no impediment in translating the wishes of the parties into reality and to quash the criminal prosecution to set the matter at rest to enable them to live in peace and to enjoy the life and liberty in a dignified manner as guaranteed by and as contemplated in the Constitution of India. 10. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, F.I.R. No.15 dated 10.01.2009 (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.