IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:August 19, 2010 Crl. Misc. No. M-17848 of 2010 Vanita Narula ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents Crl. Misc. No. M-20530 of 2010 (O&M) Dinesh Narula ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent Crl. Misc. No. M-20267 of 2010 (O&M) Darshan Singh and Others ...........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Satinder Khanna, Advocate for the petitioner (in Crl.Misc. No. M-20530 of 2010) Mr.D.S.Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioner (in Crl.Misc. No. 20267 of 2010) Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai,Assistant Advocate General,Punjab Mr.Ajay Singla Advocate for respondent No.2 Respondent No.2 as well as Injured present in person. ** Crl. Misc. No. M-17848 of 2010 -2- Sabina, J. Vide this order, the above-mentioned Criminal Misc. Petitions bearing Nos. M-17848 of 2010, M-20530 of 2010 and M-20267 of 2010 are being disposed of by a common order as these have arisen out of the same FIR. Petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 203 dated 2.5.2010 under Sections 323/341/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Division No.5, Civil lines, Ludhiana (Annexure P1) and subsequent proceedings thereto on the basis of compromise . Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on the basis of a complaint moved by respondent No.2- Pardeep Diwan, FIR in question was registered against the petitioners. Petitioners also lodged a cross version by way of DDR No. 26 dated 3.5.2010 (Annexure P4). Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that now, parties with the intervention of relatives and friends, have arrived at a compromise qua the FIR as well as the DDR. Respondent No.2 and injured- Neeti Diwan, Narotam Diwan, Ashok Diwan, Bharat Diwan and Renu Diwan are present in Court along with their counsel and they have admitted the factum of the compromise between the parties. Affidavits of respondent No.2, as well as injured are taken on record, as per which, they have no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed. Respondent No.2 and injured have further submitted that they have no objection if the DDR No.26 dated 3.5.2010 (Annexure P4) is also ordered to be quashed. Crl. Misc. No. M-17848 of 2010 -3- 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 arrived at, should at all be exercised? 24.On an overall view of the facts as indicated Crl. Misc. No. M-117848 of 2010 -4- 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 live in peace, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed. FIR No. 203 dated 2.5.2010 under Sections 323/341/148/149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Division No.5 Civil Lines, Ludhiana City (Annexure P1) as well as DDR No.26 date 3.5.2010 (Anneuxre P4) and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom,are quashed . ( Sabina ) Judge August 19, 2010 arya