Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1187 (PNJ)

Rakesh Kumar v. State Of Punjab

2001-10-23

NIRMAL SINGH

body2001
Judgment Nirmal Singh, J. 1. This is a petition under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No.153 dated 7.12.2000, P. S. Division No.5, Jalandhar under Sections 406,420 and 120-B IPC. The said FIR, was registered on the statement of Chand Parkash Vij complainant respondent No.2. 2. Sh. CHAND Parkash Vij complainant appeared in the Court today and he has been identified by Sh. Ishwar Lal, Advocate. He has made a statement that he has received the material for which cheque was issued by the petitioners and he has no objection if the said FIR is quashed. 3. There is no provision of compounding an offence in non-compoundable offences in the Code of Criminal Procedure but in State of Karnataka V/s. L. Muniswamy, their Lordships have held as under: In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Courts inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its objects it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction. 4. In Mahesh Chand and another V/s. State of Rajasthan, the accused were acquitted by the trial Court and were convicted by the High Court for the offence under Sec.307 IPC, the Apex Court allowed the parties to compound the offence. 5. 4. In Mahesh Chand and another V/s. State of Rajasthan, the accused were acquitted by the trial Court and were convicted by the High Court for the offence under Sec.307 IPC, the Apex Court allowed the parties to compound the offence. 5. In Saud and another V/s. State of Haryana, this Court allowed the compounding of the offence through the offence was not compoundable. Reliance can also be placed upon Y. Suresh Baba V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, Kailash and others V/s. State of Haryana, Chiranji Lal V/s. State of U. P. , Bharat Singh v State of M. P. and others. 6. For the reasons mentioned above, the petition is accepted and FIR No.153 dated 7.12.2000 P. S. Division No.5. Jalandhar under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC is quashed, subject to deposit of Rs.10,000.00 by the petitioners. 7. Petitioners are directed to deposit Rs.10,000.00 within 15 days from today with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh. If the petitioners will not deposit this amount, then this petition shall stand dismissed. Petition allowed.