In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M- 33788 of 2008 Date of decision: 16.2.2010 Kikkar Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Navdeep Chhabra, Advocate for Mr.M.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.J.S.Sandhu, AAG, Punjab **** SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No. 75 dated 19.5.2008 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 307, 436, 336, 452, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), under Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act') and Sections 25/ 27 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station City Ferozepur and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise dated 8.10.2008 (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties. Vide order dated 7.1.2009, parties were directed to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Chief Judicial Crl.Misc.No.M- 33788 of 2008 -2- Magistrate shall satisfy himself whether any valid compromise has been arrived at between the parties or not. The report of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has been received. As per the same, he recorded the statements of complainant Kikkar Singh, injured Ram Singh and Pipal Singh, brother of complainant Kikkar Singh. All the the three stated that the compromise has been effected between the parties with the intervention of the relatives and respectables of the area. Complainant and the accused were residing in the same locality. The accused had satisfied the claim of the complainant qua damage of articles lying in his shop. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, also recorded the statements of accused Amandip @ Happy Deora, Des Raj, father of accused Amandip @ Happy Deora, Bau, another accused and Jagdish Lal Lambardar and has reported as under:- “ From the perusal of whole above discussed statements, it is clear that complainant Kikkar Singh as well as alleged injured of present case, who were aggrieved party in this case, have effected compromise with the accused with their free consent and parties are residents of same town/City Ferozerpur. Due to the compromise arrived at between the parties, enimity or illwill arise between the parties stated to have been finished, so compromise effected between the parties is in their larger interest. No doubt the offence involved in Crl.Misc.No.M- 33788 of 2008 -3- the FIR of present case are not compoundable as per the provisions contained under Section 320 Cr.P.C. but from the perusal of statements of the complainant party along with injured who were the aggrieved party and of accused further along with lambardar, it is very much clear that compromise has been effected by the aggrieved party by their free consent and compromise is in the larger interest of both the parties as due to said compromise, enimity arose between the parties has finished. The parties are residents of the same area, so I am satisfied that valid compromise has been arrived at between the parties by their free consent.” 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 Crl.Misc.No.M- 33788 of 2008 -4- 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 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 Crl.Misc.No.M- 33788 of 2008 -5- 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 these proceedings to continue. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 75 dated 19.5.2008 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 307, 436, 336, 452, 148, 149 IPC, under Section 3 of the Act and Sections 25/ 27 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station City Ferozepur , and all the subsequent proceedings qua the petitioners, arising therefrom, are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 16, 2010 anita