Crl.Misc. No. M-24811 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-24811 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 27, 2010 Parshant Goyal and others ...........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.S.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai,Assistant Advocate General,Punjab Mr.Aman Dheer,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. 45 dated 17.4.2010 under Sections 307/325/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) registered at Police Station Gidderbaha District Muktsar (Annexure P1) and subsequent proceedings thereto on the basis of compromise dated 30.3.2010 (Annexure P2). Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that, now, parties with the intervention of relatives and friends, have arrived at a compromise. As per the medical opinion, injuries on the person of respondent No.2 were not dangerous to life. The grievous injury i.e. injury No.5 was on the left leg of the injured. Injuries No. 1 to 4 were declared simple in nature. Learned counsel has further submitted that, in fact, no Crl.Misc. No. M-24811 of 2010 2 offence under Section 307 IPC was made out. Parties were residing in the same area and were also running their business in the same area. Respondent No.2, who is present in Court along with his counsel, has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties and the contents of his affidavit (Annexure P3) . Respondent No.2 has stated that he has no objection if the FIR in question 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 Crl.Misc. No. M-24811 of 2010 3 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.” In the present case, FIR has been registered under Sections 307/325/323/34 IPC. However,as per the medical opinion placed on record, the injuries on the person of the injured-respondent No.2 were not dangerous to life. Moreover, injuries No. 1 to 4 have been declared simple in nature and the injury which is grievous in nature is on the left leg of the injured. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that an offence under Section 307 IPC is made out in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Moreover, now, the parties have amicably settled their dispute as they are residing in the same area and are also running their business in the same area. Hence, no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 45 dated Crl.Misc. No. M-24811 of 2010 4 17.4.2010 under Sections 307,325,323,34 IPC registered at Police Station Gidderbaha District Muktsar as well as the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom,are quashed . ( Sabina ) Judge September 27, 2010 arya