Crl. Misc. No. M- 2469 of 2009(O&M) {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M- 2469 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision:May 06, 2009 Channa Ram ---Petitioner versus Manmohan Chandda ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.K.S.Dhaliwal,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Advocate, for respondent. *** SABINA, J. Crl. Misc. No. 22421 of 2009 and Crl. Misc. No. 20512 of 2009 in Crl. Misc. No. 2469 of 2009 This is an application for pre-ponement of the date of hearing in the main case. Notice of the application to the counsel opposite. Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. As requested by counsel for the parties, the main petition is Crl. Misc. No. M- 2469 of 2009(O&M) {2} taken up for hearing today itself. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Crl. Misc. No. 20512 of 2009 Application is allowed. Compromise dated 21.4.2009 (Annexure A-1) is taken on record. Crl. Misc. No. M-2469 of 2009 Channa Ram -petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing of complaint No. 16/1 of 2006 titled as “Manmohan Chandda vs. Channa Ram and others” under Section 499, 500, 501 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pathankot (Annexure P-1) and summoning order dated 25.11.2008 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pathankot. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that now with the intervention of relatives and friends parties have arrived at a compromise dated 21.4.2009 (Annexure A-1). Respondent is present in person along with his counsel and has admitted the contents of the compromise dated 21.4.2009 (Annexure A-1) and has stated that he has no objection if the complaint in question is quashed. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M- 2469 of 2009(O&M) {3} 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M- 2469 of 2009(O&M) {4} between the parties would be a futile exercise.” Since the parties have arrived at a compromise, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings, in question. Accordingly this petition is allowed. Complaint No. 16/1 of 2006 titled as “Manmohan Chandda vs. Channa Ram and others” under Section 499, 500, 501 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pathankot (Annexure P-1) and summoning order dated 25.11.2008 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pathankot (Annexure P-2)are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 06, 2009 PARAMJIT