Crl. Misc. No. M- 11419 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 11419 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 23, 2010 Paramjit Singh ........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ........Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Kamaldip Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Satnam Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.2 & 3. SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR No.16, dated 27.1.2009 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 279,427,304-A of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), Police Station City Rajpura, District- Patiala and consequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. As per the Office report, respondent No.4 has refused to accept notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after investigation the Investigating Agency had submitted the cancellation report, but the same was not accepted by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that with the intervention of the relatives and friends the parties have arrived at a compromise in the Panchayat. As per the compromise, Rs.2,50,000/- have been received by the Crl. Misc. No. M- 11419 of 2010 (O&M) 2 heirs of the deceased. Gurpreet Kaur, wife of the deceased, has since got re-married with Manmohan Singh. Respondents No.2 & 3, who are present in person in the Court along with their counsel, have not controverted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. They have admitted the contents of the compromise (Annexure P-2). They have also tendered their affidavit as per which they have no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M- 11419 of 2010 (O&M) 3 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 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 and moreover a cancellation report was submitted by the Investigating Officer. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be just and expedient to quash the FIR. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The FIR No.16, dated 27.1.2009, under Sections 279,427,304-A of IPC, Police Station City Rajpura, District- Patiala and consequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed. (SABINA) July 23 , 2010 JUDGE Anand