Crl.Misc.No.M- 1125 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M- 1125 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.2.2010 Manohar Lal and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Jitender Nara, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.H.S.Beniwal, DAG, Haryana. Mr.Suresh Ahlawat, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. **** SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the cross version recorded on the statement of Anil son of Khairati Lal dated 23.4.2009 under Sections 323/ 325/ 506/ 34 and Section 307 (added later on) of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) in case FIR No. 193 dated 23.4.2009 (Annexure P-1) , registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise dated 10.5.2009 (Annexure P-3) arrived at between Crl.Misc.No.M- 1125 of 2010 (O&M) 2 the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it was a case of version and cross-version. Manohar Lal and Khairati Lal are real brothers. Ravi and Pawan are sons of Manohar Lal, whereas, Anil Kumar @ Raju is son of Khairati Lal. Now the parties have arrived at a compromise with the intervention of the relatives and respectables of the area. Respondents No. 2 and 3 along with their counsel are present in the Court and have admitted the contents of the compromise as well as their affidavits. They have submitted that they have compromised the matter with the petitioners and have no objection in case the cross-version recorded in 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. 23 and 24 has held as under:- Crl.Misc.No.M- 1125 of 2010 (O&M) 3 “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 Crl.Misc.No.M- 1125 of 2010 (O&M) 4 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 proceedings to continue. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Cross version recorded on the statement of Anil son of Khairati Lal dated 23.4.2009 under Sections 323/ 325/ 506/ 34 IPC and Section 307 IPC (added later on) in case FIR No. 193 dated 23.4.2009 (Annexure P-1) , registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 25, 2010 anita