Punjab-Haryana High Court
Naveen And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 25 April, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056702
CRM-M-12243-2024 - 1-
283 2024:PHHC:056702
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-12243-2024
DECIDED ON: 25.04.2024
NAVEEN AND ANOTHER
.....PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
.....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.
Present: Ms. Veena Hooda, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. G.S. Dhillon, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Kapil Singla, Advocate for
Mr. Nikhil Mittal, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been invoked seeking quashing of FIR No. 313, dated 03.08.2021 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 379-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Urban State Rohtak, Rohtak along-with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 28.02.2024 (Annexure P-2).
2. During the pendency of the dispute, the parties have compromised the matter and filed the present petition for quashing of FIR.
3. Vide order dated 11.03.2024, parties were directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court for recording of their statements with regard to genuineness of compromise and report in that regard was called for.
1 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 27-04-2024 10:42:20 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056702
CRM-M-12243-2024 - 2-
4. The report dated 10.04.2024 has been received from learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rohtak, stating that the parties have entered into a compromise without any fraud and misrepresentation and the same appears to genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence. None of the accused has been declared as proclaimed offenders.
5. Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, has held:-
"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 noncompoundable 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.
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 endeavour to give full 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 27-04-2024 10:42:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056702 CRM-M-12243-2024 - 3- effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery."
6. The legal principles as laid down for quashing of the judgment were also approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another,(2012) 10 SCC 303'. Furthermore, the broad principles for exercising the powers under Section 482 were summarized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others versus State of Gujarat and another" (2017) 9 SCC 641'.
7. It is evident that in view of the amicable resolution of the issues amongst the parties, no useful purpose would be served by continuation of the proceedings. The furtherance of the proceedings is likely to be a wastage of judicial time and there appears to be no chances of conviction.
8. In view of above, FIR No. 313, dated 03.08.2021 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 379-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Urban State Rohtak, Rohtak along-with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners, on the basis of compromise dated 28.02.2024 (Annexure P-2).
9. In the afore-said terms, the present petition is, hereby allowed.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
25.04.2024 JUDGE
sham
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 27-04-2024 10:42:20 :::