Crl. Misc. No. M- 7477 of 2009(O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M- 7477 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision:May 15, 2009 Ram Sarup and others ---Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ---Respondents Crl. Misc. No. 7493 of 2009 Nazir Singh and others ---Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. S.S.Gill,Advocate, for the petitioners In Crl. Misc. No. M-7477 of 2009 for respondent No. 2 in Cril. Misc. No. M-7493 of 2009) Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG,Punjab Mr.B.S.Baath, Advocate, for respondent No. 2 in Crl. Misc. No. M-7477 of 2009 and for the petitioners in Crl. Misc. No. M-7493 of 2009 *** Crl. Misc. No. M- 7477 of 2009(O&M) -2- SABINA, J. This order shall dispose of above mentioned two criminal misc. petitions as these arise out of the same FIR. Petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.')for quashing of FIR No. 134 dated 23.9.2003 under Sections 323,325,34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Khanori, District Sangrur(Annexure P-1) as well as the cross case recorded on 24.9.2003, on the basis of compromise dated 1/10/2008(Annexure P-2). Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that now with the intervention of relatives and friends parties have entered into a compromise dated 1.10.2008 (Annexure P-2). Injured Ram Sarup and Nazar Singh are present in person along with their counsel and have admitted the contents of the compromise (Annexure P-2). Their affidavits have also been placed on record. They have submitted that they have no objection if the FIR in question and the cross version are 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M- 7477 of 2009(O&M) -3- 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 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.” Since the parties have arrived at a compromise, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings, in question. Crl. Misc. No. M- 7477 of 2009(O&M) -4- Accordingly these petitions are allowed. FIR No. 134 dated 23.9.2003 under Sections 323,325,34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Khanori, District Sangrur and the cross case recorded on 24.9.2003 under Sections 323, 325/34 IPC and all consequential proceeding arising therefrom are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 15, 2009 PARAMJIT