Crl.Misc.No.M- 9477 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M- 9477 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.7.2011 Avnish Jain ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Vishal Munjal, Addl.A.G.Punjab. Mr.Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate, for respondent No.2, who is present in person. **** SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing FIR No. 103 dated 1.11.2004 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 406/ 498-A of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), 1860 registered at Police Station Division No.4, Ludhiana and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties. Crl.Misc.No.M- 9477 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the parties have arrived at a compromise with the intervention of the relatives and friends. Parties have filed a petition seeking divorce on the basis of mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act for short). In the said petition, statements of the parties were recorded and the same were annexed as Annexure p-4 and P-5. Parties had made statements that they would withdraw the cases filed against each other. The petitioner would pay ` 43,00,000/- in all to respondent No.2 and her children as full and final settlement of all claims. Out of the said amount ` 10,00,000/- have already been paid to respondent No.2 and today, the counsel for the petitioner had handed over two drafts amounting to ` 10,00,000/- in all to respondent No. 2 (photocopies of the drafts have been placed on record). ` 23,00,000/- would be paid to respondent No.2 at the time of grant of decree of divorce. Respondent No.2, who is present in person along with her counsel, has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties and the correctness of her statement Annexure P-4 recorded in the petition filed under Section 13-B of the Act. Respondent No.2 has submitted that she had received ` 10,00,000/- from the petitioner and today she has received two drafts amounting to ` 10,00,000/- from the petitioner. Thus, now she has received ` 20,00,000/- in all from the petitioner in terms of the compromise effected between the parties. The petitioner is liable to pay another sum of ` 23,00,000/- to her at the time of passing of the decree of divorce. Respondent Crl.Misc.No.M- 9477 of 2011 (O&M) 3 No.2 has submitted that she has no objection in case the FIR, qua all the accused, is ordered to be quashed. 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 power which independently lies with this court to quash the Crl.Misc.No.M- 9477 of 2011 (O&M) 4 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, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 103 dated 1.11.2004 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 406/ 498-A IPC registered at Police Station Division No.4, Ludhiana and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, qua all the accused, are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 27, 2011 anita