Gurpreet Singh Alias Lalo And ... vs State Of Punjab Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 16181 P&H

254
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

                                       CRM-M-40074-2022
                                       Decided on: 08.12.2022


GURPREET SINGH ALIAS LALO AND OTHERS
                                 .....PETITIONERS

                                  VERSUS


STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS                            .....RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.

Present:    Mr. Prince Sharma, Advocate
            for the petitioners.

            Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, AAG, Punjab.

            None for respondent Nos. 2 & 3.


SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR

No.231, dated 30.06.2020 (Annexure P-1), under Sections

452/324/326/325/506/148/149 of IPC registered at Police Station Sadar,

Tarn Taran, District, Tarn Taran, on the basis of compromise dated

15.07.2021 (Annexure P-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 05.09.2022, parties were directed to appear

before the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court for report with regard to the

genuineness of the compromise.

The report dated 27.09.2022 has been received from learned

1 of 3

Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Tarn Taran, stating that the parties

have entered into a compromise voluntarily without any pressure, threat or

coercion. There is no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.2 & 3

which shows that the said respondents have no objection to the quashing of

FIR.

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 effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or

2 of 3

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 is quashed qua the petitioners, in view of compromise

(Annexure P-2).

                                               (SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
08.12.2022                                           JUDGE
neelam

Whether speaking/reasoned        Yes/No
Whether reportable               Yes/No




                                      3 of 3