In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M- 133 of 2009 Date of Decision:February 19, 2009 Gurpreet singh @ Gopi ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab Mr.Gurvir Kaur, Advocate, for respondent No. 2 *** SABINA, J. Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi -petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.')for quashing of FIR No. 68 dated 6.5.2008 (Anneuxre P-1)under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 (added later on) of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Qila Lal Singh, Batala District Gurdaspur along with challan dated 26.7.2008 (Annexure P-2) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the parties were closely related to each other. Now, with the intervention of the respectables in order to live in peace, they have arrived at a compromise dated 27.11.2008 (Annexure P-3).Learned counsel for the petitioner has Crl. Misc. No. M- 133 of 2009 -2- 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 Singh @ Laddi and another vs. State of Punjab and another 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 970. Complainant as well as the prosecutrix are present in Court in person along with their counsel. They have admitted the contends of the affidavit dated 27.11.2008 (Annexures P-4 and P-5). Perusal of affidavits reveals that parties were closely related to each other. FIR, in question, was got registered due to some misunderstanding. They have no objection if the FIR, in question, is quashed. Incident in the present case is alleged to have taken place on 26.4.2008 whereas the FIR was got registered on 6.5.2008. Petitioner is the son of sister of complainant-respondent No. 2 at whose instance the FIR, in question, was got registered. Prosecutrix is the daughter of respondent No. 2. 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:- Crl. Misc. No. M- 133 of 2009 -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 compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.” Normally in cases where there is allegation of rape, courts may be reluctant to quash the FIR. But in the present case facts are different. Now the parties want to live in peace due to their close relationship. Crl. Misc. No. M- 133 of 2009 -4- Complainant as well as the prosecutrix are no more interest in prosecuting the prosecuting the FIR, in question. Since the parties have arrived at a compromise, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings, in question. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 68 dated 6.5.2008 (Anneuxre P-1)under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 (added later on) of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Qila Lal Singh, Batala District Gurdaspur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 19, 2009 PARAMJIT