Crl.Misc. No.M-21112 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-21112 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:July 22,2011 Jarnail Singh & Others ...........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Suresh Verma, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. G.S.Brar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab Respondent Nos.2 & 3 in person along with their counsel- Ms.Simran Chahal,Advocate ** Sabina, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No.104 dated 23.12.2008 under Sections 307/341/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) and 27 of the Arms Act,1959 registered at Police Station Sohana Tehsil and District Mohali and all consequential proceedings thereto on the basis of compromise between the parties (Annexure P2). FIR No.104 was registered on 23.12.2008 under Sections 307,341,323,34 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station Sohana. In the said FIR, two challans were presented by the Investigating agency after Crl.Misc. No.M-21112 of 2009(O&M) 2 investigation. In one challan i.e. State vs. Bahadur Singh,the challan was presented against Bahadur Singh, Amrik singh and Garja Singh on the allegations that they had caused injuries on the person of Jarnail Singh, Paramjit Kaur and Baljinder Singh. Second challan was presented against Jarnail Singh, Baljinder Singh and Paramjit Kaur for having caused injuries on the person of Bahadur Singh and Amrik Singh. Vide order dated 22.2.2011, this Court directed the trial Court to record the statements of the parties and report qua the genuineness of the compromise effected between the parties. As per report dated 23.3.2011, the trial Court has reported that the statements of the parties have been recorded and they have settled their disputes voluntarily. Statements of the parties have also been attached with the report. Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that the parties are related to each other. A civil dispute was also pending between the parties and the same has since been withdrawn. Now, in order to live in peace, the parties have arrived at a 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:- Crl.Misc. No.M-21112 of 2009(O&M) 3 “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 in order to Crl.Misc. No.M-21112 of 2009(O&M) 4 live in peace, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.104 dated 23.12.2008 under Sections 307/341/323/34 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Sohana Tehsil and District Mohali as well as the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom,are quashed . ( Sabina ) Judge July 22, 2011 arya