IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. M No. 5265 of 2009 Date of Decision: April 29, 2009 Mukhtiar Singh ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mrs.G.K.Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai,Assistant Advocate General Punjab Mr.Hardev Singh Sangha,Advocate for respondent No.2 Sabina, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 80 dated 26.7.2001 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) registered at Police Station Tappa District Barnala (Annexure P1) on the basis of affidavit dated 5.2.2009 (Annexures P3 ). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that now the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. The amount in question has been paid by the petitioner to respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is present in person along with his counsel. As per the affidavit of respondent No.2 placed on record today dated 29.4.2009, he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed as the matter has been compromised between the parties. 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 Crl. Misc. M No. 5265 of 2009 -2- 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 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 Crl. Misc. M No. 5265 of 2009 -3- 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 Criminal Misc. No.30801 of 2008 (O&M) 6 arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.” Since the parties have arrived at a compromise, in order to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 80 dated 26.7.2001 registered at Police Station Tappa, District Barnala under Section 420 IPC (Anneuxre P1) alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed . ( Sabina ) Judge April 29, 2009 arya