Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pardeep Kumar Yadav And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 1 February, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014240
2024:PHHC:014240
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
261 CRM-M-35300-2020
DATE OF DECISION: 01.02.2024
PARDEEP KUMAR YADAV AND OTHERS ...PETITIONERS
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ... RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present:None for the petitioner(s).
Mr. R.S.Khaira, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2.
***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
FIR No.225, dated 05.08.2020 under Sections 420 the IPC, 1860 and
under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (later on
added Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC) registered at Police
Station Dinanagar, District Gurdaspur, with all the consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-
5)
During the pendency of the dispute, the parties have
compromised the matter and filed the present petition for quashing of
FIR.
Vide order dated 02.11.2020, parties were directed to
appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court and report with regard to
the genuineness of the compromise was called for.
In view of the statement of complainant and the report dated
21.12.2023 has been received from JMIC 1st Class, Gurdaspur stating that
the parties have entered into a compromise, which is genuine, voluntary
and without any coercion or undue influence.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014240
2024:PHHC:014240
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
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014240
2024:PHHC:014240
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, FIR No.225, dated 05.08.2020 under
Sections 420 the IPC, 1860 and under Section 66 of the Information
Technology Act, 2000 (later on added Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B
IPC) registered at Police Station Dinanagar, District Gurdaspur,, with all
the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed qua the
petitioners-Pardeep Kumar Yadav, Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Jai Parkash
Divakar and Jittu, on the basis of compromise.
The present petition is hereby allowed.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
JUDGE
01st February, 2024
anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014240
3 of 3
