Crl. Misc. No.M-13751 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARAYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-13751 of 2010 Date of Decision: October 13, 2010 Nitin Thakur and others ….Petitioners Versus The State of Haryana ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, Dy. Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.4. **** SABINA, J.(ORAL) Petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No.566 dated 23.12.2009 registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 506 IPC at Police Station Sector-5, Panchkula and further proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise effected between the petitioners and respondent No.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that now with the intervention of relatives and friends, parties have arrived at a compromise. Respondent No.4 and petitioner No.1 are residing separately since 14.09.2008. Parties have filed a petition under Sections 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking a decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent. It has been agreed between the parties that petitioner No.1 will pay Rs.11 lacs to respondent No.4 by way of lump-sum maintenance etc. Out of the said amount Rs.5 lacs have already been paid to respondent No.4 and a demand draft of Rs.3 lacs has been handed over to respondent No.4 today in -1- Crl. Misc. No.M-13751 of 2010 the Court. Remaining amount of Rs.3 lacs will be paid to respondent No.4 at the time of passing of the decree of divorce. Respondent No.4 is present in the Court along with her counsel and has admitted the contents of the compromise between the parties and has tendered her affidavit wherein she has stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed as the matter has been duly compromised between the parties. Respondent No.4 has also stated that she has already received Rs.5 lacs from petitioner No.1 and has also received a draft of Rs.3 lacs today in the Court from petitioner No.1. 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.26 and 24 has held as under :- “26. 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 -2- Crl. Misc. No.M-13751 of 2010 which the Company was entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facts. 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 the 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. The FIR No.566 dated 23.12.2009 registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 506 IPC at Police Station Sector-5, Panchkula and all consequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed. 13.10.2010 (SABINA) vcgarg JUDGE -3-