Daya Chaudhary, J.— (Oral). This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. on behalf of petitioner-Vikas Bhardwaj @ Vicky for quashing of FIR No. 38 dated 11.03.2011 under Sections 406, 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Chamkaur Sahib, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Roopnagar, on the basis of compromise dated 21.09.2011 arrived at between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the parties has been settled by way of compromise and a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has already been allowed and divorce has been granted on the basis of mutual consent. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has also affirmed the factum of compromise and further submits that the complainant has no objection in quashing of the FIR. Vide order dated 28.02.2012, parties were directed to appear before the trial court for recording of their statements with regard to compromise and trial court was directed to record the statements of both the parties to its satisfaction to know its genuineness and was also directed to send a report along with the statements of the parties with regard to validity or otherwise of the compromise arrived at between the parties. In response to the directions issued by this Court on 28.02.2012, the statements were recorded and in this regard a report has been sent to this Court, which is on record. The petitioner as well as the complainant has stated before the trial court that they have compromised their dispute and now nothing remains between them as far as dispute is concerned. The complainant has stated that she has no objection in quashing of the FIR. Since, the dispute between the parties has been settled by way of compromise and complainant has no objection in quashing of the FIR, moreover, no purpose would be served in continuation of proceedings, in case the same are continued, it would be mere wastage of the Court time and complainant is not coming to support the case of the prosecution and moreover, because of compromise, a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has already been allowed. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also the fact that the dispute between the parties has been settled and now the complainant has no objection in quashing of the FIR, I am of the considered view that continuation of impugned criminal proceedings between the parties would be an exercise in futility. The complainant himself does not want to pursue these proceedings and it shall be merely a formality and sheer wastage of precious time of the Court as complainant would not support the case of prosecution in view of compromise effected between the parties. It would be in the interest of the parties as well as in the larger interest of the societal peace and harmony and in order to save both the families from avoidable litigation, the compromise arrived at betweenthem is accepted by this Court. It has been observed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney (1980)1 SCC 63 that “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. Relying on the views adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Five Judges Bench of this Court also observed in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2007(3) R. C. R. (Cri) 1052 that compounding of offence which are not compoundable under Section 320(9) Cr. P. C., offence non-compoundable but parties entering into compromise, High Court has the power under Section 482 Cr. P. C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offences and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. P. C., offence non-compoundable but parties entering into compromise, High Court has the power under Section 482 Cr. P. C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offences and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. While dealing with issue of quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise a Bench consisting of Five Hon'ble Judges of this Court in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra) while approving minority view in Dharambir v. State of Haryana 2005 (3) RCR (Criminal) 426: 2005(2) Apex Criminal 424: 2005 (2) Law Herald 723 (P&H) (FB), opined as under:- “ 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 482, of the Cr. P. C. 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”. No embargo, be in the shape of section 320 (9) Cr. P. C. or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 Cr. P. C. 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 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 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 litigation. The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr. 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 litigation. 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 Cr. P. C., in order to prevent the abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The power under Section 482 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 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 482 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 utmost 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 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 make some endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery. Compromise in 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 parties despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion”. Inherent power of the Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. 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 ends of justice, notwithstanding bar under Section 320 Cr. Inherent power of the Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. 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 ends of justice, notwithstanding bar under Section 320 Cr. P. C. Exercise of power in a given situation will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The duty of the Court is not only to decide a lis between the parties after a protracted litigation but it is a vital and extra-ordinary 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 society or would promote savagery, as held in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra). For the reasons recorded above and having regard to the principles laid down by the Five-Judges Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra), this petition is allowed and impugned criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 38 dated 11.03.2011, under Sections 406, 498-A IPC, at Police Station Chamkaur Sahib, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Roopnagar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua to petitioner-Vikas Bhardwaj @ Vicky.