Jagdeep Singh Gola Jaggu and another vs State of Punjab and others

Name of

accused/convict",Offence u/s,Sentence

Jagdeep Singh @ Gola,326 IPC,"To undergo rigorous

imprisonment for two

years and to pay fine of

Rs.1000/- and in default

of payment of fine to

undergo further

imprisonment for fifteen

days.

,"323 IPC read with

Section 34 IPC","To undergo rigorous

imprisonment for six

months

Hardev Singh @ Chatra,"326 IPC read with

Section 34 IPC","To undergo rigorous

imprisonment for two

years and to pay a fine

of Rs.1000/- and in

default of payment of

fine to undergo

imprisonment for fifteen

days.

,"323 IPC read with

Section 34 IPC","To undergo rigorous

imprisonment for six

months

guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be,,

acquittal or dismissal of indictment.,,

(12) The decision in Gian Singh’s case (supra) also approves the view taken by a five-Judge Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh & Ors. vs.,,

State of Punjab & Anr., 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052.",,

(13) It is indeed now unarguable to say that the power exercisable by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for the quashing of criminal prosecution,,

is limited or affected by the provision of Section 320 CrPC.,,

(15) The refusal to invoke power under Section 320 CrPC, however, does not debar the High Court from resorting to its inherent power under Section",,

482 CrPC and pass an appropriate order so as to secure the ends of justice.,,

(17) The magnitude of inherent jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC with a view to prevent the abuse of law or to,,

secure the ends of justice, however, is wide enough to include its power to quash the proceedings in relation to not only the non-compoundable",,

offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 CrPC but such a power, in our considered view, is exercisable at any stage save that there is no",,

express bar and invoking of such power is fully justified on facts and circumstances of the case.â€​,,

Considering the aforesaid dictum in Sube Singh's case (supra) and the fact that there is no statutory embargo against invoking powers under Section,,

482 Cr.P.C. after conviction of accused by the trial Court and during pendency of the appeal against such conviction and further that the compromise,,

will bring peace and harmony in relations between the parties,",,

FIR No.41 dated 06.02.2014 registered under Sections 324, 323, 34 IPC, later on Section 326 IPC at Police Station Kotwali (P.S. City), Faridkot,",,

District Faridkot, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed, subject to payment of costs of `10,000/-, out of which",,

`6,000/- shall be deposited with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority and `4,000/- with the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana.",,

Petition is disposed of accordingly.,,

List on 31.8.2018 for production of receipt with regard to deposit of aforesaid costs.,,