In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M- 2481 of 2009 Date of Decision:March 05, 2009 Sanjeev Kumar ---Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.Poonam R. Mehta,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana *** SABINA, J. Sanjeev Kumar-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. 149 dated 11.10.2008 under Sections 363, 366 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Billaspur District Yamuna Nagar on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-5) of respondent No. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had got married to respondent No. 2 on 17.10.2008. However, father of respondent No. 2 i.e. respondent No. 3 had got the FIR in question, lodged against the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 has sworn an affidavit to the effect that she has got married to the petitioner on 17.10.2008 and does not want to go back to the house of her parents and wants to live with the petitioner as his wife. Crl. Misc. No. M- 2481 of 2009 -2- As per the office report, wife of respondent No. 3 has refused to accept service. Respondent No. 2 is present in person in the Court and is identified by ASI Raj Pal, who is present in the Court to assist the learned State counsel. Respondent No. 2 has admitted her signatures and contents of her affidavit Annexure P-5. 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 involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facets. The question which is required to be answered Crl. Misc. No. M- 2481 of 2009 -3- 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 in the present case petitioner and respondent No. 2 have got married with each other, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings, in question. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 149 dated 11.10.2008 under Sections 363, 366 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Billaspur District Yamuna Nagar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 05, 2009 PARAMJIT