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 importance of evaluating the nature and gravity of the offence in determining whether a criminal proceeding should be quashed.

JUDGMENT

Avneesh Jhingan, J. (Oral). - Due to COVID-19 situation, the Court is convened through video conference.

2. These are two petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 122 dated 28.08.2020, under Sections 323, 324, 148, 149, 120-B IPC, (Section 326 IPC was added later on) registered at Police Station Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur and DDR No. 50, dated 19.09.2020 under Section 326, 34 IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 16.06.2021.

3. The two versions were got recorded by the parties in dispute for an incident that occurred on 28.8.2020. There were issues in the background for which allegations and counter-allegations were made. The differences came to boil and on 27.8.2020, there was confrontation between the two parties in which injuries were inflicted. However, with the intervention of respectables and cooling of the tamper, the matter was compromised. A compromise deed was written on 16.6.2021, hence the present petitions were filed.

4. On 12.8.2021, the parties were directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial court for getting their statements recorded with regard to compromise dated 16.06.2021.

5. The report dated 27.8.2021 is received stating that the compromise is genuine, without any pressure or coercion. Further that none of accused has been declared as proclaimed offender.

6. 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 noncompoundable 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.”

7. 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 compounding an offence, t