Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sarita Saini And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 20 March, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040158
284 2024:PHHC:040158
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-5559-2024
DECIDED ON: 20.03.2024
SARITA SAINI AND ORS.
.....PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.
.....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kataria, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Gurbir Singh Dhillon, AAG Haryana.
Ms. Gurmeet Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.2.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR
No.213, dated 19.05.2020 under Sections 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
and Section 3 of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act,
1989) (Amendment 2015), registered at Police Station Purani Subzi Mandi, Rohtak,
Haryana (Annexure P-1), with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom,
on the basis of compromise dated 24.01.2024 (Annexure P-2).
2. During the pendency of the dispute, the parties have compromised the
matter and filed the present petition for quashing of FIR.
3. Vide order dated 05.02.2024, parties were directed to appear before the
Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court and report with regard to the genuineness of the
compromise was called for.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040158
4. The report dated 21.02.2024 has been received from Additional District
& Sessions Judge, Rohtak stating that the parties have entered into a compromise,
which is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence.
5. 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."
6. 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
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040158
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'.
7. 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.
8. In view of above, FIR (Annexure P-1), with all the consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed qua the petitioners, on the basis of
compromise dated 24.01.2024 (Annexure P-2).
9. The present petition is hereby allowed.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
20.03.2024 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
