Prabhjit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 10543 P&H

257         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

                                       CRM-M-16396-2022
                                       DECIDED ON: 06.09.2022

PRABHJIT SINGH                                              .....PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER                               .....RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.

Present:    Mr. A.S. Khinda, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

            Mr. Paras Khindri, Advocate for
            Mr. Harjinder Singh, Advocate
            for the respondent No.2.

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

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

No.18, dated 18.02.2008 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 452, 323, 427, 506,

148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station

Lambra, District Jalandhar, with all subsequent proceedings arising from the

FIR on the basis of compromise/affidavit dated 13.04.2022 (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 25.04.2022, 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 06.05.2022 has been received from learned

Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Jalandhar, stating that the parties have entered

into a compromise without any threat or coercion or undue influence or

1 of 3

pressure of any kind.

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.

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

mentioned FIR dated 18.02.2008 (Annexure P-1) with all subsequent

proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner, in view of

compromise/affidavit (Annexure P-2).

                                               (SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
06.09.2022                                           JUDGE
Monika

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




                                      3 of 3