Crl.Misc. No.M-13099 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-13099 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:July 28,2011 Gurdeep Singh ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Aminder Singh. Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S.Brar , Assistant Advocate General, Punjab Palwinder Singh, respondent No.2 in person along with his counsel-Mr.N.S.Sidhu,Advocate ** Sabina, J. Petitioners has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No.24 dated 22.2.2011 under Sections 353/186/332 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) registered at Police Station Ahmedgarh District Sangrur and all consequential proceedings thereto on the basis of compromise between the parties (Annexure P2). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that now, with the intervention of relatives and friends, the parties have arrived at a compromise. The dispute between the parties was private in nature. Hence, the offence under Section 332 IPC was not attracted in the present case. I have gone through the contents of the FIR . Apparently, Crl.Misc. No.M-13099 of 2011 2 the dispute between the parties was private in nature. Vide order dated 2.5.2011, this Court directed the Area Magistrate to record the statements of the parties and report qua genuineness of the compromise. In pursuance of the said order, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, after recording the statements of the parties, has reported that the compromise appears to be voluntary in nature. 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-13099 of 2011 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, this petition is allowed. FIR No.24 dated 22.2.2011 under Sections 353/186/332 IPC registered at Police Station Ahmedgarh, District Sangrur as well as the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom,are quashed . ( Sabina ) Judge July 28, 2011 arya