Crl.Misc.No.M-36298 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-36298 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:July 28,2011 Amarjeet Singh ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab etc ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.S.P.Soi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. G.S.Brar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab None for respondent No.2 ** Sabina, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 seeking quashing of FIR No.352 dated 11.11.2006 under Sections 307/324/323/452/447/427/380/506/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) registered at Police Station Nakodar District Jalandhar (Annexure P1) and all consequential proceedings arising thereto on the basis of compromise (Annexure P3) between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that now, with the intervention of relatives and friends, the parties have arrived at a compromise . Vide order dated 28.4..2011, the trial Court was directed to record the statements of the parties and report qua genuineness of the Crl.Misc.No.M-36298 of 2010 2 compromise. In pursuance of the said order, the trial Court, after recording the statements of the parties, has reported that the parties have arrived at a compromise of their own accord and compromise appears to be genuine. A perusal of the judgment Annexure P2 reveals that Baldev Singh and 13 others had faced the trial and they were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 324,323,148,149 IPC as the eye witnesses had failed to support the prosecution case. At that time, petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender. Now the petitioner has surrendered before the trial Court. 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 Crl.Misc.No.M-36298 of 2010 3 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 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 the criminal proceedings to continue. Keeping in view the fact that the accused who had faced the trial have since been acquitted and complainant has also arrived at a compromise between the petitioner, it would be just and expedient to quash the abovementioned FIR. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.352 dated Crl.Misc.No.M-36298 of 2010 4 11.11.2006 under Sections 307/324/323/452/447/427/380/506/148/149 IPC registered at Police Station Nakodar,District Jalandhar as well as the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom,are quashed . ( Sabina ) Judge July 28, 2011 arya