IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-36931 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.08.2011 Varinder Singh @ Shonki ..Petitioner Versus Inderjit Kumar @ Inder & Anr. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA. Present: Mr. D.P.S. Kahlon, Advocate for the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 in person alongwith his counsel Mr. Paramjit Singh, Advocate for Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate Mr. G.S. Brar, AAG, Punjab for respondent No. 2. **** SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 105 dated 22.02.2008 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 326, 325, 324, 323, 341, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered ('IPC' for short) at Police Station Sadar Amritsar, District Amritsar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that now with the intervention of the relatives and friends parties have arrived at a compromise. Vide order dated 25.04.2011 the trial Court was directed to record the statements of both the parties and report qua the validity or otherwise of the compromise. Crl. Misc. No. M-36931 of 2010 (O&M) -2- In pursuance of the said order the trial Court after recording the statements of the parties has reported that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties that they have effected the compromise in question. As per the reply by way of affidavit of respondent No. 1 placed on record it has been stated that he has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed.Respondent No. 1 is present in person alongwith his counsel and has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties. 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. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-36931of 2010 (O&M) -3- 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 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. FIR No. 105 dated 22.02.2008 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 326, 325, 324, 323, 341, 506, 34 IPC at Police Station Sadar Amritsar, District Amritsar and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed. (SABINA) August 17, 2011 JUDGE Poonam (II)