Crl. Misc. No. M-4767 of 2009 {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-4767 of 2009 Date of Decision:April 21, 2009 Mangat Singh and others ---Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. Naveen Chopra,Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG,Punjab Mr.Ashok Kumar, Advocate, for respondent-Bank. *** SABINA, J. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that due to typographical error there is mistake in the names of petitioners No. 2 and 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is allowed to make the necessary corrections in the memo of parties. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.')for quashing of FIR No. 100 dated 22.8.2000 under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Division No. 2, Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Crl. Misc. No. M-4767 of 2009 {2} accounts in dispute have been settled. No due certificate in this regard is Annexed as Annexure P-2. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted that the matter in question has been settled as the loan account of M/s Malhotra Box Manufacturers has been settled and the bank has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed as now nothing remains due from the petitioners. 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:- “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 Crl. Misc. No. M-4767 of 2009 {3} 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 settled their dispute, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings, in question. Accordingly this petition is allowed. FIR No. 100 dated 22.8.2000 under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Division No. 2, Ludhiana. and all consequential proceeding arising therefrom are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 21, 2009 PARAMJIT