Crl. Misc. No. M- 15169 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 15169 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : December 16, 2010 Surinder M. Khandhar ........Petitioner Versus Union Territory Chandigarh and another ........Respondents ******* CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. Parvez Chugh, Advocate for Mr. Varun Tara, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kulbir Dalal, Advocate for Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for U.T. Chandigarh. Mr. A.S. Grewal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 in person. SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.289 dated 26.5.2002, under Sections 406,420,120-B of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') registered at Police Station Sector 17, Chandigarh and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that now the parties have arrived at a compromise. The amount in dispute has been paid Crl. Misc. No. M- 15169 of 2010 (O&M) 2 to respondent No.2 by the petitioner. Now the parties have amicably settled their dispute. Respondent No.2 is present in person along with his counsel and has stated that he has received the amount in question from the petitioner and has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed. Affidavit of respondent No.2 in this regard has been placed on record. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M- 15169 of 2010 (O&M) 3 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 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 the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The FIR No.289 dated 26.5.2002, under Sections 406,420,120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 17, Chandigarh and all consequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed. (SABINA) December 16, 2010 JUDGE Anand