Crl. Misc. No. M- 24638 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 24638 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 24, 2010 Gurpreet Singh and others ........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ........Respondents ******* CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. H.S. Batth, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. Respondent No.2 in person. SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.82 dated 30.7.2010, under Sections 307,148,149 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short 'the Act') registered at Police Station Cantonment, Amritsar City and consequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that it was a case of no injury. Now a compromise has been effected between the parties. Respondent No.2 is present in person and has been identified by ASI Harjit Singh, who has come to assist the learned State counsel, and he has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties and has also admitted the contents of his affidavit. Respondent No.2 has submitted that Crl. Misc. No. M- 24638 of 2010 (O&M) 2 he has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed. Learned State counsel, who is assisted by ASI Harjit Singh, has submitted that during investigation it has been found that no occurrence as alleged has taken place. 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.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 Crl. Misc. No. M- 24638 of 2010 (O&M) 3 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 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.82 dated 30.7.2010, under Sections 307,148,149 IPC and Section 25 of the Act registered at Police Station Cantonment, Amritsar City and consequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed. (SABINA) September 24, 2010 JUDGE Anand