Boota Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 1906 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Boota Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Another on 29 January, 2024

Author: Sandeep Moudgil

Bench: Sandeep Moudgil

                                                   Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012722




  HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
                                 ****
                   275-CRM-M-45485-2022 (O&M)
                       Date of Decision: 29.01.2024
                                 ****
Boota Singh @ Ors.                                  ... Petitioners

                                        VS.

State of Punjab & Anr.                                       ... Respondents
                               ****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
                               ****
Present: Mr. Taanir Dhull, Advocate for
         Mr. Lakshay Bector, Advocate for the petitioners

            Mr. RS Khaira, DAG Punjab

            Mr. Kashish Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2

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

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

FIR No.72 dated 25.06.2021, under Sections 457/380/34 IPC, registered at

Police Station Sadar Raikot and all other subsequent proceedings arising

therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 07.07.2022 (Annexure P2).

During the pendency of the dispute, the parties have

compromised the matter. Vide order dated 29.09.2022, parties were directed

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

to the genuineness of the compromise.

As per the report dated 19.09.2023 from learned JMIC, Jagraon,

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:012722

"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 Supreme Court in the matter of 'Parbatbhai

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012722

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 wastage of

judicial time as there appears to be no chances of conviction.

In view of above, prayer made in the present petition is allowed

and the above mentioned FIR (Annexure P1) along with all subsequent

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

compromise (Annexure P2).

Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms

of the compromise and their deposition made before the Court below.

29.01.2024 (Sandeep Moudgil) V.Vishal Judge

1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No

2. Whether reportable? Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012722

3 of 3