Tuesday, 02, Jun, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Heena Lamba And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Anr
2024 Latest Caselaw 20587 P&H

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 20587 P&H
Judgement Date : 20 November, 2024

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Heena Lamba And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 20 November, 2024

Author: Sandeep Moudgil

Bench: Sandeep Moudgil

                                       Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152296




282


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

                                         CRM-M-49624-2024
                                         DECIDED ON: 20.11.2024

HEENA LAMBA AND ORS.
                                                             .....PETITIONERS

                                      VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
                                                             .....RESPONDENTS


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

Present:    Mr. Kamal Chaudhary, Advocate
            for the petitioners.

            Mr. Surender Singh Pannu, Addl. AG, Haryana.

            Mr. Gaurav Verma, Advocate for respondent No.2.

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. This is a petition under Section 528 BNSS 2023 for quashing of FIR

No.58 dated 15.06.2024, under Sections 419, 420 of IPC (Sections 467, 468, 471

and 120-B of IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Cyber Crime

Central, Faridabad (Annexure P-1), with all subsequent proceedings arising

therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 27.08.2024 (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 03.10.2024, parties were directed to appear before

the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court and report with regard to the genuineness of the

compromise was called for.

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152296

4. The report dated 05.11.2024 has been received from Judicial

Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad, 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

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152296

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 No.58 dated 15.06.2024, under Sections 419,

420 of IPC (Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC added later on) registered at

Police Station Cyber Crime Central, Faridabad (Annexure P-1), is quashed qua the

petitioners, on the basis of compromise dated 27.08.2024 (Annexure P-2).

9. The present petition is hereby allowed.

10. Pending applications, if any be disposed off accordingly.




                                               (SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
20.11.2024                                           JUDGE
Meenu




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




                                      3 of 3

 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter