Crl. Misc. No. M- 1998 of 2009 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M- 1998 of 2009 Date of Decision:March 25, 2009 Gurmej Singh ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Ms. Balwinder Kaur,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab Mr.Santosh Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 2 *** SABINA, J. Gurmej Singh-petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.) for quashing of FIR No. 77 dated 10.7.2006 under Sections 406,407,420 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Sadar Kapurthala and all consequential proceedings thereto on the basis of letter dated 12.1.2009 (Annexure P-6). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that now the Crl. Misc. No. M- 1998 of 2009 -2- entire amount which was to be paid by the petitioner has been adjusted. The respondent-bank has written a letter dated 12.1.2009 (Annexure P-6) to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sadar Kapurthala that proceedings be dropped and no action be taken against the borrower-petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, on instructions from Ram Lobhaya, Head Cashier of the respondent-bank, has submitted that FIR in question be quashed as the amount in question has been deposited by the petitioner. 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 paras 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 Crl. Misc. No. M- 1998 of 2009 -3- 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 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 arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.” Annexure P-5 is a certificate issued by respondent No. 2 to the effect that the term loan a/c No. JG780 of the petitioner stands adjusted on 10.10.2008 in toto and now nothing remains due against the petitioner. As per Annexure P-6, the bank has written a letter to the Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar Kapurthala that the proceedings against the petitioner be dropped as the loan amount of the petitioner stood fully adjusted and certificate to this effect is issued. In these circumstances no useful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the FIR in question. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 77 dated 10.7.2006 under Sections 406,407,420 of the Indian Penal Code registered Crl. Misc. No. M- 1998 of 2009 -4- at Police Station, Sadar Kapurthala and all consequential proceedings thereto including Annexure P-4 dated 23.3.2007 passed by the trial court qua the petitioner are quashed (SABINA) JUDGE March 25, 2009 PARAMJIT