Punjab-Haryana High Court
Indu And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 14 November, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148871
232
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-50140-2024
DECIDED ON: 14.11.2024
INDU AND OTHERS
.....PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
.....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Paras Jhamb, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Surender Singh Pannu, Addl. AG, Haryana.
Mr. Ishan Khetarpal, Advocate
for respondents No.2 & 3.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. This is a petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of FIR
No.178, dated 18.05.2023 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 148, 149, 323, 379-B,
380, 452 IPC, 1860 and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Sections 379-B, 380 IPC and Section 3(2)(v)
of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
deleted later on) registered at Police Station Pundri, District Kaithal, with all
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated
24.08.2024 (Annexure P-3).
2. During the pendency of the dispute, the parties have compromised the
matter and filed the present petition for quashing of FIR.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148871
3. Vide order dated 21.10.2024, parties were directed to appear before the
Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court and report with regard to the genuineness of the
compromise was called for.
4. The report dated 12.11.2024 has been received from Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Kaithal in CRM-M-50090-2024 (connected case), 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
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148871
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
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 24.08.2024 (Annexure P-3).
9. The present petition is hereby allowed.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
14.11.2024 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
