Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjeev Joshi vs U.T Chandigarh And Another on 22 April, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054953
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
****
CRM-M-10833-2024
Date of Decision: 22.04.2024
****
Sanjeev Joshi ... Petitioner
VS.
State of UT Chandigarh & Anr. ... Respondents
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
****
Present: Mr. VK Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Ankur Bali, Addl. PP, UT Chandigarh
Mr. Saksham Malhotra, Advocate for the complainant
****
Sandeep Moudgil, J. (Oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR
No.237, dated 04.11.2016 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 420, 467, 468 and
471 of the IPC, 1860 registered at Police Station Manimajra, Chandigarh,
with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of
Memorandum of Settlement Deed dated 25.01.2024 (Annexure P-3).
During the pendency of the dispute, the parties have
compromised the matter. Vide order dated 29.02.2024, 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 08.04.2024 has been received from learned
JMIC, Chandigarh 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:-
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054953
"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."
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
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054953
proceedings. The furtherance of the proceedings is likely to be wastage of
judicial time as there appears to be no chances of conviction.
Counsel for the complainant points out that the petitioner, who is
the son, has filed 6 cases against her and till all the cases are withdrawn, the
petition may be kept pending.
In counter thereto, learned counsel for the petitioner informs that
5 out of 6 cases have already been withdrawn and the 6th case is listed before
this Court on 20.05.2024. He undertakes that the said petition shall also be
withdrawn on the date fixed. In the light of the above, this Court has no
reason to disbelieve the statement made by counsel for the petitioner.
In view of above, prayer made in the present petition is allowed
and the above mentioned FIR with all subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner in view of the compromise.
However, it is made clear that in case any complaint which is left
pending or not brought to the notice in the instant of terms of compromise,
the respondent/complainant shall be at liberty to recall the present petition for
revival of the FIR itself.
Disposed off.
Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms
of compromise and their statements made before the Court below.
22.04.2024 (Sandeep Moudgil)
V.Vishal
Judge
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable? Yes/No
3 of 3
