Read Order: Mohamad Sai and Others v. State Of Punjab and Others

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, February 23, 2022: While dealing with a plea for quashing of an FIR pertaining to the abduction of Ajay, the victim, by the accused persons, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the incorporation of the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is meant to deal with the situations arising in the absence of express provision of law and to secure ends of justice and the said power should not be exercised to circumvent the express provision of law. 

The bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj also added that where the High Court is convinced that the offence is entirely personal in nature and therefore does not affect a public peace or tranquility and where it feels that the quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. 

In the instant petition, prayer was made for quashing of case FIR under Section 365 r/w Section 34 IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the strength of compromise entered between parties. The FIR in question was instituted on the statement of one Reshma pertaining to abduction of Ajay by the accused persons, who were relatives of Reshma and Ajay. 

The Court observed at the outset that the harm was inflicted against the person of an individual and the same was not in the nature of an offence against the society at large. Besides, the Court also opined that the dispute seemingly was amongst the parties that were relatives and the same was resolved with the intervention of the respectable members of the family. 

Further, the Court also observed that the inherent powers of the High Court ought to be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. Therefore, considering the fact that the complainant agreed to the quashing of the FIR as also the fact that the matter was settled and compromised amicably, the Court deemed it a fit case for quashing the petition. 

Thus, while holding that continuing the case proceedings would only be a waste of judicial time in addition to unwarranted harassment of the parties concerned, the petition was allowed. 

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment