CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS None on 19 June 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Crl. Misc. No. M- 8592 of 2009(O&M)

Date of Decision: April 29, 2010

Amarjit Singh etc.

........Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab etc.

........Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

Present:Mr. J.B.S. Gill, Advocatefor the petitioners.

Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Ruminderjit Singh, Advocatefor respondent No.2.

SABINA, J.

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing the FIR No.117 dated19.6.2006 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 406,420,120-B of Indian PenalCode (in short 'IPC'), Police Station Mahilpur, District- Hoshiarpur andconsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the partieshave arrived at a compromise with the intervention of the relatives andfriends. The amount in question has been paid to the respondent No.2.

Respondents No.2, who is present in person in the Court alongwith his Counsel, has admitted the factum of compromise between theparties and has submitted that he has received the amount in question.Respondent No.2 has also tendered his affidavit as per which he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052,High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compoundingof non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the HighCourt felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process ofany Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of quashingis not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant vs.Central Bureau of Investigation and another JT 2008 (9) SC 192in paraNos.26 and 24 has held as under :- “26.In the instant case, the disputes between the Companyand the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromisearrived at by them whereunder the dues of the Bank have beencleared and the Bank does not appear to have any further claimagainst the Company. What, however, remains is the fact thatcertain documents were alleged to have been created by theappellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities beyond thelimit to which the Company was entitled. The dispute involvedherein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facts.The question which is required to be answered in this case iswhether the power which independently lies with this Court toquash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrivedat, should at all be exercised?

24. On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinaboveand keeping in mind the decision of the Court in B.S. Joshi's case

(supra) and the compromise arrived at between the Company andthe Bank as also clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suitfilled by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case wheretechnicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in thequashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, thecontinuance of the same after the compromise arrived at betweenthe parties would be a futile exercise.”

Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decidedto live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing thesecriminal proceedings to continue.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The FIR No.117dated 19.6.2006 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 406,420,120-B of IPC,Police Station Mahilpur, District- Hoshiarpur and consequent proceedings,arising therefrom, are quashed.

April 29, 2010Anand

(SABINA) JUDGE