Anoop Kumar v. State Of Haryana And Another



















   

     
  



 !

"# $!%&'&"()  * +* 



 ,

****! & &"(!- .!-'/'

0

   

 

***!'1"($!( '

)  23 0* 0
 , 0 

 
  
  






 



  

 
 !

, 0

* *

-4
 "

 
#


$% &

'()
 *+,

! - !-!.
% 
/
*!*
.-0
.+12
3
,-0
(4
& 
 / 
5 %

) 
&


$% 
 &

&



# 



-+ - !-!,
67%
!8

 
#

 

!


 
%


 

&
%&

   * "
4%

%&



 
 

-.

-* !-!,


 

 
#

 
4%9( $

& 
 &

 

&




!

















.

%% 


 
 


 -* !-!,
 
# 


4
:% &
6:
82%2:

'4
) 

% 


  
 
 
 




 
#
 

 
 

 

 

 
 
#

#


 

#;

 

'()

$%

$% 

"
 
#


&%
%

% %
%



, "
'%
<


4%






    

   

!

"#

 
&
4%
 
 % 
/
.1!
4 



% &

2%

# 

$% 

%


&
4%




 
  
 
$%



#%




 


 %

 

;%
"


$% &




 

%


=#

/%
4%


 

$





       "

%

!

#% 


#
 

 
 %

 

;%




#%



4%
 
 
#
%
#

4%

$% 
 
 &



2 
 
#


"
 



,>


 
;% & 


% 2
"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation

*

















but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

xxx xxx xxx. "

> (



2
;% &
%&



  
4%
& &
 #

#

68


2   

4%
 
 
$% &

'()


$%%


2 %
#

 







#
 

#%

 



 %

"%

%%
%
%
#


%& 
 &


 

%

 

;%

 
 & 


 


#
$% 

)%  





'()
 *+,

! - !-!.
% 
/
*!*
.-0
.+12
3
,-0
(4
& 

/ 
5 %

) 


$% 
 &
 $% 
$%

68


# 




-+ - !-!, 67%
2!8
%#;





) ----92

#




 
? 
'% 
 ( @)
4 & 







9.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

, 0  * +* 

  5($!!1 ?
 &9 

A9 ?
) #

A9