Raj Kumar Juneja vs State Of Haryana And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 15942 P&H

CRM-46065-2022 in/and
CRM-M-30095-2019                                                   - 1-

114
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH
                             ****

CRM-46065-2022 in/and CRM-M-30095-2019 DECIDED ON: 6th DECEMBER, 2022

RAJ KUMAR JUNEJA PETITIONER VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.

Present:      Ms. Kamlesh, Advocate for
              Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate
              for the petitioner.

              Mr. Chetan Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

              Mr. Sukhdeep Singh, Advocate
              for respondent No.2.

                        ****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

CRM-46065-2022

Prayer in the present application is for preponing the date of

hearing in the main petition, which is listed for 05.01.2023.

Application is allowed, as prayed for.

The main case is preponed from 05.01.2023 to today i.e.

06.12.2022.

CRM-M-30095-2019

The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed

for quashing of FIR No. 36, dated 14.01.2019 (Annexure P-1), under

Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Ghraunda,

District Karnal and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the

basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).

                                     1 of 3

 CRM-46065-2022 in/and
CRM-M-30095-2019                                                - 2-

During the pendency of the dispute, the parties have

compromised the matter and filed the present petition for quashing of FIR.

Vide order dated 13.11.2019 parties were directed to appear

before the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court for recording of their statements

with regard to the genuineness of the compromise.

The report dated 21.12.2019 has been received from learned

Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal stating that the parties have entered

into a compromise voluntarily, which is genuine and without any pressure.

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

2 of 3

CRM-46065-2022 in/and CRM-M-30095-2019 - 3-

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 effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery."

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'.

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 waste of judicial time and there appears to be no chances of

conviction.

In view of above, the present petition is allowed and the above

mentioned FIR (Annexure P-1) with all subsequent proceedings arising

therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner in view of compromise (Annexure

P-2).

SANDEEP MOUDGIL JUDGE 6th DECEMBER, 2022.

sham

              1. Whether speaking/ reasoned :         Yes / No
              2. Whether reportable         :         Yes / No


                                     3 of 3