IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. M. No.32795 of 2008 Date of Decision: February 17, 2009 Nitin and another ...........Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Ms. Vibha, Advocate for Mr. S.S.Naruala, Advocate the petitioner. Mr.Sidharath Sarup,Assistant Advocate General, Haryana Mr.Tejinder Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2 ** Sabina, J. Petitioners have filed this petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 77 dated 28.2.2008 under Sections 387, 506 IPC at Police Station Model Town, Panipat alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 3.12. 2008 (Annexure P2) arrived at between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that now with the intervention of respectables, parties had arrived at a compromise. Parties were known to each other and in order to live in peace, the compromise has been effected. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has placed on record the affidavit of respondent No.2. A perusal of the compromise dated 3.12.2008, (Anneuxre P2) reveals that with the intervention of the respectables, parties had arrived at a compromise and complainant- respondent No.2 would have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. Respondent No. 2, who is present in person along with his Crl.Misc. M. No.32795 of 2008 -2- counsel, has admitted the contents of the compromise. 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 compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is 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 192 in para Nos. 23 and 24 has held as under:- “23. In the instant case, the disputes between the Company and the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromise arrived at by them whereunder the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not appear to have any further claim against the Company. What, however, remains is the fact that certain documents were alleged to have been created by the appellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facets. The question which is required to be answered in this case is whether the power which independently lies with this court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise Crl.Misc. M. No.32795 of 2008 -3- arrived at, should at all be exercised? 24.On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in B.S.Joshi's case (supra) and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filled by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise Criminal Misc. No.30801 of 2008 (O&M) 6 arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.” Since the parties have arrived at a compromise, in order to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 77 dated 28.2.2008 under Sections 387, 506 IPC at Police Station Model Town, Panipat alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P2) are quashed . ( Sabina ) Judge February 17, 2009 arya