Crl. Misc. No. M- 16434 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 16434 of 2010 Date of Decision: July 22, 2010 Sanjeev Sharma ........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ........Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Amarjeet Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR No.121 dated 29.06.2009 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC), registered at Police Station City Phagwara on the basis of compromise between the parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the parties have arrived at a compromise (Annexure P-2) with the intervention of the relatives and friends with a view to move on in life by putting an end to their litigation. Hargurjodh Singh, who is attorney holder of respondent No.2 is present in person along with his counsel, has admitted the factum of compromise between parties and has tendered his affidavit. As per the Crl. Misc. No. M- 16434 of 2010 2 contents of affidavit he has no objection, if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed. He has admitted the contents of the compromise (Annexure P- 2). 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.26 and 24 has held as under :- “26. 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 facts. 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 the 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 Crl. Misc. No. M- 16434 of 2010 3 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 and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing these criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The FIR No.121 Dated 29.06.2009, under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C., registered at Police Station City Phagwara and consequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed. (SABINA) July 22, 2010 JUDGE sharmila