Judgment RITU BAHRI, J. 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 437 dated 23.09.2009 under sections 419, 420,467, 468, 471 120 IPC, registered at P.S. Kotwali Patiala and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 30.11.2010 (Annexure P1) 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant Gurdeep Bedi s/o Sh. Brijinder Singh Bedi purchased the property situated at street No. 19 Guru Nank Nagar Patiala bearing Khewat/Khatauni/ No. 330/545.551 Khasra Nos. 5952/4026/1138/1 (0-11) 4030/1 and 1138/1 (0-17) total measuring 1 Bigha 8 Biswas out of which the share of Harinder Singh was 8/28 measuring 0-8 Biswas and share of Buupinder Singh 6-3/4/28 measuring 6-3/4 biswas and out of Khewat/Khatauni No. 327/439 Khasra No. 5753/3960/1111 Mkin (0-6) Biswas and share of Harinder Singh was 3-6 share measuring 0-3 biswas and share of Bhupinder out of this property as 2-1/4/6 measuring 0-2/1/4 Biswas and tootal property which was purchased was 1 Bigha 0 Biswas vide registered sale deed dated 25.04.2005 for an amount of Rs. 12,85,000/-. Gurdeep Singh Bedi and his wife Mrs. Vitesha Bedi had also purchased another property measuring 14 biswas sitauted in Guru Nanak Nagar Street No. 19 Patiala vide registered sale deed 25.04.2005 bearing Khewat/Khatauni No. 330/545, 551, Khasra Nos. 5952/4026/1138/1 (0-11), 4030/1138/1 (0-17) total measuring 1 Bigha 8 biswas out of this property the share of Harinder Singh was 6/28 measuring 0-6 biswas and the share of Balraj Kaur 0-3/4/28 measuring 0-3/4 biswas. 3. A civil suit is also pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Patiala regarding the dispute between petitioner and respondent No. 2. On 30.11.2010, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 settled the said dispute and the compromise to that effect is Annexure P1. As per the affidavit (Annexure P1), complainant Gurdeep Bedi states that he has resolved the issues. There was a dispute regarding the property, which he had purchased from Dr. Harinder Singh and others, which has been decided against Kuldeep Singh on 17.11.2010. 4. Respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and filed his reply by way of affidavit admitting the factum of compromise and stating that due to intervention of respectable and relatives, the matter has been compromised with the petitioner and now he is having no objection if the FIR in question with consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed qua petitioner. 4. Respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and filed his reply by way of affidavit admitting the factum of compromise and stating that due to intervention of respectable and relatives, the matter has been compromised with the petitioner and now he is having no objection if the FIR in question with consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed qua petitioner. Respondent No.2-complainant is present in the Court and has identified by his counsel. The compromise is voluntarily and without any pressure. As per compromise (Annexure P-1), both the parties have settled the dispute amicably as per the conditions recorded in the compromise. Counsel for the respondent does not dispute the genuineness of the compromise/affidavit (Annexure P-1) annexed with the petition. 5. Broad guidelines have been laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 for quashing the prosecution when parties entered into compromise. The Full Bench has observed that this power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: 26. In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, (1980)1 SCC 63, Honble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the essence of compromise in the following words : The finest hour of justice arrived propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion. 27. 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. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) if the Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 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 emity and reduces friction, then it truly is finest hour of justice. 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 emity 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. 6. The ratio of the Full Bench judgment is a special reference which has been made to the offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide where the victim dies in the course of transaction would fall in the category where compounding may not be permitted. Heinous offences like highway robbery, dacoity or a case involving clear-cut allegations of rape should also fall in the prohibited category. However, the offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide may be permitted to be compounded when the Court is in the position to record a finding that the settlement between the parties is voluntary and fair. The Court must examine the cases of weaker and vulnerable victims with necessary caution. 7. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429 has examined a case where quashing was sought of an FIR under Section 406 IPC being non- compoundable. The Honble Supreme Court has held that : 1. No useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise  There was no possibility of conviction. 2. It is advisable that in the disputes where question involved is of purely personal nature and no public policy is involved  Court should ordinarily accept the compromise. 3. Keeping the matter alive with no possibility of conviction is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford. 8. 2. It is advisable that in the disputes where question involved is of purely personal nature and no public policy is involved  Court should ordinarily accept the compromise. 3. Keeping the matter alive with no possibility of conviction is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford. 8. Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (supra) and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), FIR No.437 dated 23.09.2009 under sections 419, 420,467, 468, 471 120 IPC, registered at P.S. Kotwali Patiala is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. 9. The petition stands disposed of.