Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tarsem Singh @ Bittu And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 7 September, 2022
CRM-M-14849-2019 - 1-
247
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CRM-M-14849-2019
DECIDED ON: 7th SEPTEMBER, 2022
TARSEM SINGH AND OTHERS
PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.
Present: Mr. Dhawaljeet Dutta, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
Instant petition has been filed for seeking quashing of FIR No.
12, dated 17.01.2016 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 341, 324, 323, 148
and 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Jandiala Guru, District Amritsar
and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of
compromise dated 05.07.2018 (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 02.12.2019 parties were directed to appear
before the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court and for report with regard to the
1 of 3
CRM-M-14849-2019 - 2-
genuineness of the compromise.
The report dated 16.02.2021 has been received from learned
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar stating that the parties have entered
into a compromise voluntarily, which is genuine. without any coercion,
threat or 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
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
2 of 3
CRM-M-14849-2019 - 3-
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 petitioners in view of compromise
(Annexure P-2).
SANDEEP MOUDGIL
JUDGE
7th SEPTEMBER, 2022.
sham
1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No
2. Whether reportable : Yes / No
3 of 3
