Crl.M.No.31958-M of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.31958-M of 2010 Date of Order: 3.12.2010 Sachin Kumar Aggarwal .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Addl.A.G, Haryana. Mr. K.B. Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) Present petition under section 482 Cr.PC is for quashing of FIR No.561 dated 9.6.2010 under Sections 420/406/467/468/ 471/499/500/504/506 IPC, P.S Karnal City and the subsequent proceedings on the basis of compromise dated 26.10.2010 (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties. As per allegations in the FIR, petitioner is alleged to have caused losses to the complainant by publishing books wrongly under the trade marks of complainant forcibly and selling it illegally in Haryana, Delhi and other states of India. Petitioner has knowingly used Trade Mark of Dev Jyoti Books Pvt Ltd thus cheating the complainant. Vide order dated 29.10.2010, this Court had directed the Crl.M.No.31958-M of 2010 #2# learned Illaqa Magistrate for recording the statements of the parties and send report regarding genuineness of the compromise. It is stated that the parties have not got recorded their statements before the Illaqa Magistrate so far. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the parties are present in court today and their statements may be recorded. Request is allowed subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs to be deposited with Haryana State Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh today itself. Cost of Rs.10000/- has been deposited vide receipt No.0000738 dated 3.12.2010, a copy whereof has been taken on record. Respondent No.2, who is present in court and has been identified by her counsel Sh. K.B Sidhu, states that he has reached a compromise with the petitioner in the aforesaid FIR. His statement has been separately recorded whereby he no longer wishes to pursue the prosecution of the petitioner and has no objection if the present FIR and all subsequent proceedings are quashed. Learned state counsel, on instructions from ASI Ashok Kumar, states that he is unable to raise any serious objection to the quashing of the FIR on the basis of the compromise since the complainant is not willing to support the prosecution case. Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2003) 4 SCC 675, B.S Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Another has made it explicitly clear in para 15 of its judgment that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Crl.M.No.31958-M of 2010 #3# Section 320 of the Code does not limit or effect the powers under Section 482 of the Code. A Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has held that this Court, in appropriate cases, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash an FIR disclosing the commission of non compoundable offences. The relevant extracts read as under:- “The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C., which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.” Hon'ble Apex Court in another case in J.T 2008(9) S.C 192 Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another while relying upon its decision in B.S. Joshi's case(supra) has also held that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of criminal proceedings and the continuance of the same after compromise between the parties would be a futile exercise. Similar views were expressed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Crl.M.No.31958-M of 2010 #4# Madan Mohan Abot v. State of Punjab 2008(4) SCC 582, the relevant extract of which is as under:- “We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” Keeping in view the above settled legal position and taking into account the fact that both the parties have desired to live in peace and harmony and carry on with their lives without any ill will or rancour by resolving their differences and entering into the aforesaid compromise, it is evident that it is a fit case where there is no impediment in the way of the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of the FIR in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.561 dated 9.6.2010 under Sections 420/406/467/468/ 471/499/500/504/506 IPC, P.S Karnal City and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. December 03, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE Crl.M.No.31958-M of 2010 #5#