Intzar And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 17199 P&H

CRM-M-48329-2022                                                              - 1-


243          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH

                                 CRM-M-48329-2022
                                 DECIDED ON: 19th DECEMBER, 2022

INTZAR AND OTHERS
                                                                 .....PETITIONERS
                                    VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER

                                                             .....RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.

Present:     Ms. Alisha Soni, Advocate
             for the petitioners.

             Mr. Surender Singh, AAG, Haryana.

             None for respondents No.2 to 4.

        ****

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

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

seeking quashing of FIR No. 568, dated 18.09.2015 (Annexure P-1), under

Sections 148, 149, 323, 506 IPC (Section 325 IPC added later on) registered at

Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat, on the basis of compromise

(Annexure P-3).

During the pendency of the dispute, the parties have compromised

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

Vide order dated 03.11.2022, parties were directed to appear

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

genuineness of the compromise was called for.

The report dated 17.11.2022, has been received from learned Sub

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Smalkha stating that the parties have entered

1 of 3

CRM-M-48329-2022 - 2-

into a compromise, which is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion,

pressure, threat or undue influence. There is no representation on behalf of

respondents No.2 to 4, which shows that they have no objection to the

quashing of the afore-said 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

CRM-M-48329-2022 - 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, FIR No. 568, dated 18.09.2015 (Annexure P-1),

under Sections 148, 149, 323, 506 IPC (Section 325 IPC added later on)

registered at Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat is quashed qua the

petitioners, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3)

The present petition is hereby allowed.

                                              (SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
  th
19 DECEMBER, 2022                                   JUDGE
sham

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




                                     3 of 3