Rajesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Anr
2024 Latest Caselaw 9468 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rajesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 2 May, 2024

Author: Sandeep Moudgil

Bench: Sandeep Moudgil

                                       Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061358



CRM-M-9499-2024                 1              2024:PHHC:061358


283
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH

                                                     CRM-M-9499-2024
                                                    DECIDED ON: 02.05.2024
RAJESH KUMAR
                                                           .....PETITIONER

                                    VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR
                                                           .....RESPONDENTS

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.

Present:    Mr. Anmol R. Sharma, Advocate for
            Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate
            the petitioner.

             Mr. Chetan Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

            Mr. Lalita Kashyap, Advocate for the respondent No.2.


SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

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

No.49, dated 26.02.2020, under Sections 406, 420 and 506 (Section 120-B

IPC deleted later on) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police

Station Chhapar, District Yamunanagar (Haryana) (Annexure P-1), with all

the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise

dated 19.01.2024 (Annexure P-2).

During the pendency of the dispute, the parties have

compromised the matter and filed the present petition for quashing of FIR.

Vide order dated 22.02.2024, parties were directed to appear

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

genuineness of the compromise was called for.

The report dated 19.03.2024 has been received from Judicial

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061358

CRM-M-9499-2024 2 2024:PHHC:061358

Magistrate, 1st Class, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri, stating that the parties have

entered into a compromise, which is genuine, voluntary and without any

coercion or undue

influence.

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

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061358

CRM-M-9499-2024 3 2024:PHHC:061358

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

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.49, dated 26.02.2020, under Sections

406, 420 and 506 (Section 120-B IPC deleted later on) of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Chhapar, District Yamunanagar

(Haryana) (Annexure P-1), with all the consequential proceedings arising

therefrom, is quashed qua the petitioner, on the basis of compromise dated

19.01.2024 (Annexure P-2).

The present petition is hereby allowed.

                                                    (SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
02.05.2024                                               JUDGE
monika

Whether speaking/reasoned:      Yes/No
Whether reportable:             Yes/No




                                      3 of 3