Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dhanna Lal And Others vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 25 October, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
239
POZA PHHE 140834
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-48540-2024
DECIDED ON: 25.10.2024
DHANNA LAL AND OTHERS
sees PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR
sesee RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Tejinderbir Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Surender Singh Pannu, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Sorabh Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
This is a petition under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing of
FIR No.910, dated 25.12.2018 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 408, 201,
420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at
Police Station Sadar Gurugram with all the consequential proceedings
arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 11.09.2024 (Annexure
During the pendency of the dispute, the parties have
compromised the matter and filed the present petition for quashing of FIR.
Vide order dated 26.09.2024, 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 19.10.2024 has been received from Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram, 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
CrP.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 CrP.C., in order to prevent the
abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.
The power under Section 482 of the CrP.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 ts 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."
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.910, dated 25.12.2018 (Annexure P-
1), under Sections 408, 201, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Sadar Gurugram with all the
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed qua the
petitioners, on the basis of compromise dated 11.09.2024 (Annexure P-2).
The present petition is hereby allowed.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
25.10.2024 JUDGE
Poonam Negi
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
