Crl. Misc. No. M- 4114 of 2009 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M- 4114 of 2009 Date of Decision:March 25, 2009 Rajiv and another ---Petitioners versus State of Haryana and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.Deepak Gupta ,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana Mr.Jatinder Nara, Advocate, for respondent No. 2 *** SABINA, J. 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. 7 dated 8.1.2009 under Sections 363/366 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Sadar Panipat. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners had got married on 27.12.2008. Respondent No. 2, who is father of petitioner No. 2 had got lodged the FIR in question against the petitioners as well as relatives of petitioner No. 1. Learned counsel has placed reliance on judgments of this Court reported as Surinder Kamboj and others vs. State of Punjab and another 2008(1)RCR(Criminal 21 and Talwinder Crl. Misc. No. M- 4114 of 2009 -2- Singh @ Laddi and another vs. State of Punjab and another 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 970. Respondent No. 2 is present in person along with his counsel and has admitted the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioners. Respondent No. 2 has stated that his daughter, Priyanka had got married to Rajiv and he has no objection to the said marriage and consequently he stated that the FIR in question 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 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- 4114 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.” In view of the fact that the petitioners are married and their marriage has been accepted by respondent No. 2, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings, in question. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 7 dated 8.1.2009 under Sections 363/366 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Sadar Panipat and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners as well as their co-accused are quashed. Co- accuse of the petitioners namely Rajesh and Balbir Singh be released forthwith, who are stated to be in custody, if not wanted in any other case. (SABINA) JUDGE March 25, 2009 PARAMJIT