Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagir Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 6 September, 2022
245 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-38501-2019
DECIDED ON: 06.09.2022
JAGIR SINGH .....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.
Present: Mr. S.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur Bhatti, Advocate for
Mr. Nitin Thatai, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR
No.24, dated 17.02.2014 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468,
471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station
P.S. Mattaur Distirct S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, with all subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom on the basis of settlement/closure letter (Annexure P-2 &
P-4).
During the pendency of the dispute, the parties have
compromised the matter and filed the present petition for quashing of FIR.
Vide order dated 28.01.2020, parties were directed to appear
before the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court and for report with regard to the
genuineness of the compromise.
The report dated 16.08.2022 has been received from learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, SAS Nagar, stating that the parties have entered
into a compromise without any threat or coercion or undue influence or
pressure of any kind.
1 of 3
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
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'.
2 of 3
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.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a
judgment of Delhi High Court rendered in Mrs. Poonam Khanna V. State
and others, 2018 (2) AD (Delhi) 372: wherein partially FIR on the basis of
compromise has been allowed in the identical circumstances.
In view of above, the present petition is allowed and the above
mentioned FIR dated 17.02.2014 (Annexure P-1) with all subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner, in view of
settlement/closure letter (Annexure P-2 & P-4).
It is, however, made clear that the present FIR stands quashed
on the basis of settlement/closure letter qua only Jagir Singh petitioner
herein partially as there are total five accused involved in the present FIR.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
06.09.2022 JUDGE
Monika
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
