JUDGMENT

Augustine George Masih, J. - This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') has been filed for quashing of FIR No.238 dated 19.10.2012, registered under Sections 323, 406, 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Ambala Sadar, District Ambala and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, by Mangal Dass Gautam and his wife Neelam Gautam (father-in-law and mother-in-law of respondent No.2-complainant Neha) through Charanjit Singh, their Special Power of Attorney.

2. On preliminary objection raised by respondent No.2 complainant that the petition is not maintainable through a Power of Attorney as the same has not been filed by the petitioners themselves, therefore, deserves dismissal, was considered by the learned Single Judge where two conflicting judgments were cited before the Court, one being Amit Ahuja Vs. Gian Parkash Bhambri, 2010 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 586, where it was held that a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable through Attorney resulting in its dismissal, another being of a Coordinate Single Bench Kuldeep Singh Jaswal & others vs. Jaspal Singh & another, 2016 (2) AICLR 703 with a contrary view, where a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom through Attorney, observed that this Court would insist upon filing of the petition by the accused person himself/herself yet there cannot be or should not be laid down a straight jacket formula in this regard, leaving it open at the discretion of the concerned Court dependent upon the facts and circumstances of the said case. This led to a Reference to a Larger Bench, which reads as under:-

"Taking into consideration, conflict in the two decisions rendered by this Court and in absence of any provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') authorizing an accused to file a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. through an Attorney, the matter may be placed before a Larger Bench for decision on the following issues:-

i) Whether a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings can be filed by an accused through an Attorney, if so, under what circumstances?

ii) If issue No.l is answered in negative, whether the same would apply with equal force to an accused seeking quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise?"

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has referred to the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as 1882 Act') to emphasize upon the nature and purpose for which, such provisions have been provided for under the statute. Emphasis has been placed on Sections 1-A and 2 of 1882 Act.

4. With regard to Question No.l, he contends that the objection, which has been raised by respondent No.2-complainant is not sustainable as there is no restrictions on the discretionary powers as conferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. upon the High Court. In support of his contentions, he has referred to the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court such as Pepsi Foods Limited & another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & other 1998 (5) SCC 749, B.S. Joshi & others Vs. State of Harvana & others 2003 (4) SCC 675 and Manoj Sharma Vs. State of Harvana 2008 (16) SCC 1.

5. Referring to the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has further emphasized upon the extraordinary powers conferred on this Court not only under the statute but also under the Constitution of India. He, therefore, contends that there cannot be any bar in relation to maintainability relatable to the locus standi of a person to invoke the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for seeking relief. Further dilating upon the entitlement of a Power of Attorney holder to initiate proceedings and the extent to which the said power can be invoked, he has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Stat