SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Surender Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 23 July, 2018

Crl. Misc. No. M-14388 of 2018 -1-

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Crl. Misc. No. M-14388 of 2018
Date of Decision: 23.7.2018

Surender Kumar ……Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another …..Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY

Present: None.

****

ANITA CHAUDHRY, J (ORAL)

The trial of the petitioner in case FIR No. 294 dated

28.11.2014, registered under Sections 354, 506 IPC, Police Station KUK

has culminated into his conviction under Section 354 IPC and he has been

substantively sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of

one year. He has challenged the order of conviction and sentence by way of

an appeal before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra.

During the pendency thereof, it is claimed that the parties have entered into

compromise with the intervention of respectable persons. Compromise-deed

(Annexure P-4) reiterating the factum of compromise, has been placed on

record.

Report has been called from the trial Court, after statements of

the parties was recorded regarding the compromise. Judicial Magistrate Ist

Class, Kurukshetra has reported that the compromise is voluntary and

genuine. He has also sent the statements of parties in original.

Hon’ble the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab

1 of 5
25-07-2018 02:41:35 :::
Crl. Misc. No. M-14388 of 2018 -2-

Ors. 2012(10) SCC 303 has held as under:-

“48. The question is with regard to the inherent power of the
High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings against an
offender who has settled his dispute with the victim of the crime
but the crime in which he is allegedly involved is not
compoundable Under Section 320 of the Code.

49. Section 482 of the Code, as its very language suggests,
saves the inherent power of the High Court which it has by
virtue of it being a superior court to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
It begins with the words, ‘nothing in this Code’ which means
that the provision is an overriding provision. These words
leave no manner of doubt that none of the provisions of the
Code limits or restricts the inherent power. The guideline for
exercise of such power is provided in Section 482 itself i.e., to
prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice. As has been repeatedly stated that
Section 482 confers no new powers on High Court; it merely
safeguards existing inherent powers possessed by High Court
necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to
secure the ends of justice. It is equally well settled that the
power is not to be resorted to if there is specific provision in
the Code for the redress of the grievance of an aggrieved
party. It should be exercised very sparingly and it should not
be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any
other provision of the Code.

50. In different situations, the inherent power may be exercised
in different ways to achieve its ultimate objective. Formation of
opinion by the High Court before it exercises inherent power
Under Section 482 on either of the twin objectives, (i) to
prevent abuse of the process of any court or (ii) to secure the
ends of justice, is a sine qua non.

51. In the very nature of its constitution, it is the judicial
obligation of the High Court to undo a wrong in course of
administration of justice or to prevent continuation of
2 of 5
25-07-2018 02:41:35 :::
Crl. Misc. No. M-14388 of 2018 -3-

unnecessary judicial process. This is founded on the legal
maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, conceditur et id sine
qua res ipsa esse non potest. The full import of which is
whenever anything is authorised, and especially if, as a matter
of duty, required to be done by law, it is found impossible to do
that thing unless something else not authorised in express
terms be also done, may also be done, then that something else
will be supplied by necessary intendment. Ex debito justitiae is
inbuilt in such exercise; the whole idea is to do real, complete
and substantial justice for which it exists. The power possessed
by the High Court Under Section 482 of the Code is of wide
amplitude but requires exercise with great caution and
circumspection.”

In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswami, AIR 1977 SC 1489,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the ends of justice are higher

than ends of mere law, though justice has got to be administered according

to the laws made by the legislature yet the Court proceeding ought not to be

permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution.

The Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Kulvinder Singh

Ors. Vs. State of Punjab Anr. 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, while

discussing the scope of quashing of prosecution on the basis of compromise,

by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non-

compoundable offence(s) has held 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 non-

compoundable 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.

In the case of Sube Singh Anr. State of Haryana Anr.

3 of 5
25-07-2018 02:41:35 :::
Crl. Misc. No. M-14388 of 2018 -4-

Crl. Misc. No. M-38140 of 2011, decided on 09.04.2014, a Division Bench

of this Court while dealing with the question, as to whether the criminal

proceedings can be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482

Cr.P.C. even after the accused was found guilty and convicted by the trial

court and the matter is sub-judice before the appellate Court, answered the

reference in the affirmative. Relying upon the decisions rendered in

Kulwinder Singh and Gian Singh (supra), the Court observed as under:-

“16. The magnitude of inherent jurisdiction exercisable
by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a view of
prevent the abuse of law or to secure the ends of justice,
however, is wide enough to include its power to quash the
proceedings in relation to not only the non-compoundable
offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 Cr.P.C. but
such a power, in our considered view, is exercisable at any
stage save that there is no express bar and invoking of such
power is fully justified on facts and circumstances of the case.”

It has further been held that:

“20 … Since there is no statutory embargo against
invoking of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after conviction
of an accused by the trial Court and during pendency of appeal
against such conviction, it appears to be a fit case to invoke the
inherent jurisdiction and strike down the proceedings subject
to certain safeguards.”

Adverting to the facts of present case, the parties have mutually

settled their dispute and have buried the hatchet. There is nothing on record

which is suggestive of the fact that the petitioner is a pervious convict.

Keeping in view the pronunciation of law and also the facts, in

my opinion, it would be a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482

Cr.P.C.

4 of 5
25-07-2018 02:41:35 :::
Crl. Misc. No. M-14388 of 2018 -5-

Therefore, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently,

impugned FIR and all other consequent proceedings thereto, qua the

petitioner are quashed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence

are also set aside.

(ANITA CHAUDHRY)
JUDGE
July 23, 2018
Gurpreet

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No

5 of 5
25-07-2018 02:41:35 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation