Crl. Misc. No. M-5303 of 2011 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-5303 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.7.2011. Pankaj and another .......Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. R.K.Trikha, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. G.S.Brar, Asstt. A.G. Punjab for respondent No.1. None for respondents No. 2 and 3. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the FIR No. 14 dated 11.2.2005 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 420,406,34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and 24 of Immigration Act, registered at Police Station Dhilwan, District Kapurthala and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise (Annexure P-6) affected between the parties. On 21.2.2011, following order was passed:- “The present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners namely, Pankaj and Soni @ Sonu for quashing of FIR No. 14 dated 11.2.2005 under Sections 420, 406, 34 IPC and Section 24 of Immigration Act registered at Police Station Dhilwan, District Kapurthala on the basis of compromise Crl. Misc. No. M-5303 of 2011 (O&M) -2 - annexed as Annexure P-6 with the petition. Notice of motion for 4.4.2011. Meanwhile, the parties are directed to be present before the trial Court on 24.2.2011 or any other date convenient to the Court for recording statements of the parties. The trial Court is directed to record the statements of both the parties to its satisfaction to know its genuineness that the statements are not the result of any pressure or coercion in any manner. The trial Court is also directed to send statements of the parties along with a report with regard to validity or otherwise of the compromise effected between the parties or whether any case is pending against either of the parties or not before the next date of hearing. ” Service of respondents No. 2 and 3 is complete but none has appeared on their behalf. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has reported that the compromise, arrived at between the parties, seemed to be genuine and without any unde influence, coercion and pressure. Statements of respondents No. 2 and 3 were recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, wherein they had stated that they did not want to pursue the case. 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. Crl. Misc. No. M-5303 of 2011 (O&M) -3 - 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-5303 of 2011 (O&M) -4 - decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 14 dated 11.2.2005 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 420,406,34 of the Indian Penal Code and 24 of Immigration Act, registered at Police Station Dhilwan, District Kapurthala, and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 19, 2011 Gurpreet