Gurdeep Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 11017 P&H

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH.

269                               CRM-M-19118-2022
                                  Date of Decision: 12.09.2022


Gurdeep Singh and others                                  ...Petitioners.

                          Versus

State of Punjab and another                               ....Respondents.
                          ***

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
                ----

Present:    Mr. R.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for
            Mr. Aakash Kumar Gupta, Advocate
            for the petitioners.

            Mr. Aman Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

            Mr. Pranav Nanda, Advocate for
            Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate
            for respondent No.2.

                      ****
Sandeep Moudgil, J. (Oral)

The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 is for quashing of FIR No.78 dated 22.04.2021 (Annexure

P-1) under Sections 323, 458, 427, 506, 148, 149 IPC, registered at Police

Station Nakodar Sadar, Jalandhar Rural, Punjab and all consequential

proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 08.03.2022

(Annexure P-2) effected between the parties.

During the pendency of the dispute, the parties have

compromised the matter. Vide order dated 06.05.2022 parties were directed

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

to the genuineness of the compromise.

1 of 3

The report dated 09.06.2022 has been received from learned

Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nakodar stating that the parties have

entered into a compromise without any undue influence or pressure.

A 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 everlasting 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."

2 of 3

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) and all subsequent proceedings arising

therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners in view of compromise (Annexure

P-2).

                                               (SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
                                                     JUDGE

12.09.2022
komal

             Whether speaking/ reasoned        :      Yes/ No
             Whether Reportable                :      Yes/ No




                                3 of 3