Criminal Misc. No.30801 of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.30801 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 05.02.2009 Arvinderpal Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Karanjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. Mr.Jagdeep Singh, Advocate for the complainant-respondent No.2. **** SABINA, J. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No.153 dated 4.11.2005 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 364 of the Indian Penal Code “IPC”- for short), registered at Police Station B-Division, Amritsar in view of the compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties. Criminal Misc. No.30801 of 2008 (O&M) 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the FIR in question was a result of matrimonial dispute. The complainant was sister-in-law of petitioner No.1. Now the matter have been compromised. Sister of the complainant and petitioner No.1 have now got a decree of divorce. Learned counsel for complainant-respondent No.2 has submitted that the parties have arrived at a compromise with the intervention of the relatives and respectables of the area. He has placed on record affidavits of the complainant-respondent No.2 and Harsharan Singh Virdi. A perusal of the affidavit of the complainant-respondent No.2, placed on record, reveals that the parties have arrived at a compromise. Rita Sandhu, sister of the complainant, and Arvinderpal Singh, petitioner No.1 have got a decree of divorce and the complainant has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed. A perusal of the affidavit of Harsharan Singh Virdi, placed on record, reveals that his sister Rita Sandhu was married to petitioner No.1 and a matrimonial dispute arose between them, which resulted in filing of civil and criminal cases by both the sides against each other. Now the matter has been compromised and he (Harsharan Singh Virdi) has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed. As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Criminal Misc. No.30801 of 2008 (O&M) 3 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Lakhwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2004(4) RCR(Criminal) 104, wherein it was held in paras 12 and 19 as under:- “12. The observations made above leave no manner of doubt that the wholesome jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court by Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be narrowed, confined or put in a strait-jacket. This inherent power can always be exercised by the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of Court or to otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The only constraint on the High Court is that since the power under this section is very wide, it should be exercised with great care and and caution. On the other hand, the court should not shy away from exercising this power when the accused persons are being persecuted in the guise of prosecution. Proceedings initiated and continued for Criminal Misc. No.30801 of 2008 (O&M) 4 oblique motives or to wreak vengeance on the other party are liable to be quashed. Proceedings are also liable to be quashed if even on the allegation being accepted in toto, prima facie no offence could be made out. 19. It, thus, become fairly evident that the court have consistently put an end to criminal proceedings which are an abuse of the process of Court. At the initial stage, at the summoning stage and even after charges have been framed, the High Court has the inherent power to quash proceedings and to pass such orders as are necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contains a non-obstante clause to the effect that nothing in the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be deemed to limit the powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of Court. Therefore, filing of the charge-sheet in Court does not in any manner affect the amplitude of the wholesome jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The only rider being, that greater the power, greater the care and caution in exercise thereof” 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:- Criminal Misc. No.30801 of 2008 (O&M) 5 “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 Criminal Misc. No.30801 of 2008 (O&M) 6 arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.” In Ruchi Aggarwal vs. Amit Kumar Aggarwal 2005(3) S.C.C. 299, husband and wife had entered into a compromise and got divorce by mutual consent. Wife had not withdrawn the FIR under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC despite compromise and the FIR was quashed. Although the offence under Section 364 IPC is serious in nature but the facts of the present case reveal that it is not a case of that type. The registration of FIR under Section 364 IPC was a result of matrimonial dispute between the sister of the complainant and petitioner No.1. Due to matrimonial dispute civil as well as criminal litigation arose between the parties. Now petitioner No.1 and sister of the complainant have got a decree of divorce and have decided to patch up all the civil as well as criminal litigation. In these circumstances, it would be just and expedient to quash the FIR in question on the basis of the compromise as the offence in question is of a private nature and is not an offence against the society in the real sense. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The FIR No.153 dated 4.11.2005 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 364 IPC registered at Police Station B-Division, Amritsar and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 05, 2009 anita