Crl. Misc. No. M- 20242 of 2008(O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M- 20242 of 2008(O&M) Date of Decision:May 11, 2009 Mandeep Singh and others ---Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. HPS Ishar,Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG,Punjab Mr.Rohiteshwar Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 2 Mr. Sanjiv Patiyal, Advocate, for respondent No. 3 *** SABINA, J. Petitioners haves filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.')for quashing of FIR No. 11 dated 27.2.2008 (Annexure P-3)under Sections 363/366/34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Purana Shalla, District Gurdaspur. FIR in question was lodged by respondent No. 2-Sohan Lal, Crl. Misc. No. M- 20242 of 2008(O&M) -2- father of respondent No. 3-Amarjit Kumari that on 2.11.2007, respondent No. 3 had not returned back home. Respondent no. 2 made various enquiries from petitioner No. 1 about the whereabouts of his daughter but his daughter could not be found. Petitioners have filed this petition seeking quashing of FIR in question on the ground that in fact petitioner No. 1 had got married to respondent No. 3 and they had been blessed with a child. Respondents No. 2 and 3 are present in person along with their counsel. Respondent no. 3 has admitted her marriage with petitioner No. 1 and has also stated that they have been blessed with a child. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M- 20242 of 2008(O&M) -3- 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.” The facts of this case are peculiar. Since respondent No. 3 and petitioner No. 1 are married, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings, in question as the same would be nothing but the abuse of process of court. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are mother and sister respectively of petitioner No. 1. Accordingly this petition is allowed. FIR No. 11 dated 27.2.2008 (Annexure P-3)under Sections 363/366/34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Purana Shalla, District Gurdaspur and all consequential proceeding arising therefrom are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 11, 2009 PARAMJIT