SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 80031

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
PHOOL CHAND – Appellant
Versus
ST OF HRY – Respondent
CRA-S_106-SB_2005



##PAGE1##

The trial of the appellant in case FIR No.52, dated 06.07.2003,

under Sections 307, 324, 506 IPC, at Police Station Shehzadpur, District

Ambala, has culminated into his conviction under the aforesaid heads and he

has been substantively sentenced. The appellant has challenged the order of

conviction dated 19.11.2004 and order of sentence dated 20.11.2004 by way

of present appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant

POONAM NEGI

2026.05.15 16:34

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

##PAGE2##

Vide order dated 23.04.2026 passed by this Court, the trial

Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned had been directed to record the statements

of the parties with regard to the genuineness and authenticity of the

compromise.

5. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Ambala, has submitted a report, vide letter dated 12.05.2026,

which indicates that the parties had appeared before the Magistrate and got

recorded their respective statements with regard to the validity of the

compromise. As per the report, the compromise arrived at between the

parties is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence

and out of free will of the parties.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in “Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab &

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.

POONAM NEGI

2026.05.15 16:34

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

##PAGE3##

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

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

POONAM NEGI

2026.05.15 16:34

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

##PAGE4##

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 rea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top