The wide ambit of the inherent power of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice, and the limitations on quashing serious offences even if the victim and offender have settled the dispute.

JUDGMENT :

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.

1. The matter is taken up for hearing through video conference due to COVID-19 situation.

2. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.20 dated 05.02.2018 registered under Sections 323, 506, 147, 149, 404, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of IPC, 1860 at Police Station Radaur, District Yamunanagar, on the basis of compromise.

3. The FIR was registered at the behest of complainant-respondent No.2, namely, Ram Singh against six of his relatives. The dispute was with regard to the registered `Will' dated 21.05.2014 executed by his grandmother. The allegations levelled in the complaint were that the complainant was being harassed to transfer the entire property. During investigation, four more persons were found involved. During the pendency, one of the accused, namely, Kuldeep Singh died.

4. The present petition has been filed for quashing of said FIR on the basis of compromise dated 21.12.2020. Vide order dated 16.02.2021, the parties were directed to get their statements recorded before the trial Court.

5. Report dated 05.03.2021 of the District and Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar has been received, wherein, it is stated that the compromise effected into between the parties is genuine and entered into by their free will. There is only one victim.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 has no objection in quashing of the FIR.

7. Total ten accused were there. The petitioners and the complainant are the relatives. The dispute was with regard to inheritance of the property. The good sense has prevailed over the parties. They have bridged the ridge and decided to live peacefully saving their relations to an extent possible.

8. 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 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.

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 compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.”

9. The Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat and another, 2017 AIR (SC) 4843 has expounded principles governing the exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:-

“15. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions :

(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere