In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M- 23306 of 2008 Date of Decision:February 17, 2009 Paramjit Singh ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. Hitesh Kaplish,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab *** SABINA, J. Paramjit Singh -petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing FIR No.102 dated 20.6.1989 under Sections 458, 380 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Phillaur District Jalandhar. Notice of the petition was issued to Surinder Singh- complainant and he is present in Court in person and has been identified by HC Om Parkash, who is present in the Court to assist learned State counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that complainant-Surinder Singh has sworn an affidavit on 2.1.2009 that he has never given any statement against petitioner-Paramjit Singh, nor he was present at the time of occurrence. He does not know Paramjit Singh. He does not want to take any action against Paramjit Singh and has no Crl. Misc. No. M- 23306 of 2008 -2- objection if he is discharged. Complainant-Surinder Singh has admitted the contents of the affidavit. 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:- 1. “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 Crl. Misc. No. M- 23306 of 2008 -3- 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 complainant has filed an affidavit that the petitioner has not committed any offence, and he has no objection if the petitioner is discharged, this petition is allowed. FIR No.102 dated 20.6.1989 under Sections458, 380 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Phillaur District Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising thereto are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 17, 2009 PARAMJIT