Crl.Misc.No.M- 25354 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M- 25354 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.1.2010 Jasbir Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.B.S.Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.N.C.Doabia, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr.J.S.Sandhu, AAG, Punjab **** SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint No.43 dated 16.4.2007 under Sections 307/ 326/ 325/ 324/ 148/ 149 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, Police Station Beas and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise dated 16.8.2009 (Annexure P- 2) arrived at between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Crl.Misc.No.M- 25354 of 2009 (O&M) 2 both the parties are neighbours and related to each other. They have arrived at a compromise with the intervention of the relatives and respectables of the area. Krishan Singh-respondent No.1 along with his counsel and other injured Navtej Singh, Prithipal Singh, Jaswant Singh and Sukhdev Singh are present in the Court and have admitted the contents of the compromise (Annexure P-2). They have submitted that they have compromised the matter with the petitioners and have no objection in case the complaint 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 Crl.Misc.No.M- 25354 of 2009 (O&M) 3 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 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 Crl.Misc.No.M- 25354 of 2009 (O&M) 4 decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing these proceedings to continue. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The complaint No. 43 dated 16.4.2007 under Sections 307/ 326/ 325/ 324/ 148/ 149 IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, Police Station Beas , and all the subsequent proceedings, qua the petitioners, arising therefrom, are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 21, 2010 anita