IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-16196 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:July 13, 2010 Munish Sharma and others ...........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another . .........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate General Punjab Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for respondent No.2 ** Sabina, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 228 dated 4.11.2006 under Sections 31, 32 of Domestic Violence Act (`the Act' for short) and Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) registered at Police Station Kurali (Punjab) (Annexure P1) and subsequent proceedings thereto on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that now, parties with the intervention of relatives and friends, have arrived at a compromise. Petitioner No.1 and respondent N.2 have applied for a decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent. Statement of respondent No.2 was recorded before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in these proceedings. She has deposed with regard to the compromise effected between the parties. Crl. Misc. No. M-16196 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Respondent No.2, who is present in person along with her counsel has admitted the contents of her statement (Annexure P2) which reads as under:- “It is stated that a compromise has been arrived at with the accused according to which they have agreed to give me total amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as full and final settlement. Out of which today before the Lok Adalat they have paid a demand draft of Rs.2,00,000/- bearing No. 454165 dated 26.3.10 of State Bank of India which has been given in the court and another demand draft of Rs.1,00,000/- 454164 dated 26.3.10 which is of State Bank of India has been handed over to Sh.Gurpreet Singh, Advocate who has got the compromise effected. This demand draft of Rs.1,00,000/- will be given to me after I sign on the petition for mutual divorce. I have no objection in this. In lieu of this I will be bound to withdraw all the cases filed against the accused i.e. on U/s 125 of Cr.P.C. which is pending in the court of Sh.Gopal Arora, JMIC Ropar and another case of mandatory injunction which is pending in the court of Sh. Jai Om, Ropar. Thereafter, we both will have nothing against one another. In case any petition for quashing of FIR No. 228 is filed then I will not raise any objection before the Hon'ble High Court and if I shall be called for written statement then I will be bond to do so. Besides that one TV given in my dowry is lying in police custody which shall be released to me and the accused will have no objection to the same.” Crl. Misc. No. M-16196 of 2010 (O&M) -3- RespondentNo.2 has further stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. Learned State counsel has submitted that after investigation police had also prepared the cancellation report. 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-16196 of 2010 (O&M) -4- 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 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.228 dated 4.11.2006 under Sections 31 and 32 of the Act and Sections 498-A and 406 IPC registered at Police Station Kurali(Punjab) as well as the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom,are quashed . ( Sabina ) Judge July 13, 2009 arya