The wide powers of the High Court to quash proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and the principles governing the exercise of such powers, including the evaluation of whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

JUDGMENT :

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.

1. This is a petition for quashing of FIR No.0180 dated 27.07.2020 (Annexure P-1) registered at Police Station Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib under Sections 452, 379, 506, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The quashing is on the basis of Compromise Deed dated 05.08.2020 (Annexure P-2).

2. The FIR was registered at the behest of Goru s/o Darshan Kumar. The allegations in the FIR was that on 27.07.2020, the petitioner along with two persons were standing near the house of the complainant. On being asked as to why they were standing in the street near his house, the accused got agitated. They came armed with danda and bricks. The complainant closed the door.

3. The accused entered the house and damaged/thrown away the household articles. It was alleged that an oppo phone was also taken away.

4. The present petition was filed for quashing of said FIR.

5. Vide order dated 03.12.2020, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording of their statements.

6. The report of the District and Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib dated 19.02.2021 has been received. It is stated that the compromise is genuine and without any pressure or coercion. Challan has not been presented. The accused are not involved in any other FIR.

7. Learned counsel for complainant-respondents No.2 and 3 has no objection to the quashing of the FIR. 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.”

8. 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 in the High Court;

(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While com