Crl.Misc. M No. 20756 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-20756 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:August 31, 2010 Piyush Kumar and another ...........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Sandeep Majithia, Advocate for the petitioner along with petitioner-Piyush Kumar Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate General,Punjab Mr.Rajiv Singh,Advocate for respondent No.2 Respondent No.2 -Ambika Joshi in person ** Sabina, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 55 dated 19.4.2008 under Sections 406,498-A of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) registered at Police Station Division No.1, Jalandhar (Annexure P1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 23.4.2010 (Annexure P2). Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that now with the intervention of relatives and friends, parties have arrived at a compromise (Anneuxre P2) . Parties have filed a petition seeking divorce on the basis of mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.. Now, the case is listed before the District Judge, Jalandhar for 10.11.2010 for further proceedings. Petitioner No.1, who is present in Crl.Misc. M No. 20756 of 2010 2 person along with his counsel has stated that he will appear before the District Judge, Jalandhar on 10.11.2010. Rs.60,000/- has been paid by the petitioners to respondent No.2 today in Court and,therefore, Rs.1,25,000/- has been paid by the petitioners to respondent No.2 towards full and final settlement qua maintenance etc. Respondent No.2, who is present in Court along with her counsel, has filed reply by way of an affidavit wherein she has stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed. Respondent No.2 has further stated that she has received in all Rs.1,25,000/- from the petitioners towards the full and final settlement qua maintenance etc. Out of the said amount, she has received Rs.60,000/- in the Court today. Respondent No.2 has further stated that she will appear before the District Judge Jalandhar on 10.11.2010. 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 Crl.Misc. M No. 20756 of 2010 3 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 arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.” Since the parties have arrived at a compromise in order to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 55 dated Crl.Misc. M No. 20756 of 2010 4 19.4.2008 under Sections 406, 498-A IPC registered at Police Station Division No.1 Jalandhar (Annexure P1) as well as the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed . ( Sabina ) Judge August 31, 2010 arya