IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 01.09.2011 CRM No. M-25398 of 2011(O&M) Gurveer Singh ..Petitioner Versus U.T. Chandigarh and Anr. ..Respondents CRM No. M-14332 of 2010 Gurraj Singh and Anr. ..Petitioners Versus U.T. Chandigarh and Ors. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA. Present: Mr. D.B. Singh Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sukant Gupta, Addl. Public Prosecutor for U.T. Chandigarh. Respondent No. 2 present in person Ms. Savita Saxena, Advocate for private respondent **** SABINA, J. Vide this order, the above-mentioned petitions would be disposed of by a common order as the controversy involved in the two cases is similar. Petitioner have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.PC') seeking quashing of the FIR No. 197, dated 19.8.2009 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 406, 498- A of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), at Police Station Centre Sector 11, Chandigarh and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the CRM No. M-25398 of 2011(O&M) -2- CRM No. M-14332 of 2010 basis of compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the petition, the parties have arrived at a compromise with the intervention of the relatives and friends. Now petitioner Gurveer Singh and complainant Rajdeep Kaur have filed a petition seeking divorce on mutual consent under Section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Respondent No. 2 Rajdeep Kaur is present in person alongwith her counsel and has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties and has stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed. She has tendered her affidavits in this regard. 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:- "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 CRM No. M-25398 of 2011(O&M) -3- CRM No. M-14332 of 2010 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 decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed. The FIR CRM No. M-25398 of 2011(O&M) -4- CRM No. M-14332 of 2010 No. 197, dated 19.8.2009 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 406, 498-A IPC, at Police Station Centre Sector 11, Chandigarh and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. (SABINA ) September 01, 2011 JUDGE Poonam (II)