Crl. Misc. No. M- 26885 of 2008(O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M- 26885 of 2008(O&M) Date of Decision:May 11, 2009 Ajay Kumar and others ---Petitioners versus Narinder Kaur ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. H.N.Mehtani,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Gopal Singh, Advocate, for respondent. *** SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.')for quashing of complaint titled as “Narinder Kaur vs. Ajay Kumar and others” under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (Annexure P-7)and further proceedings in pursuance thereto. At the request of counsel for the parties, this case was ordered to be listed before the Mediation and Conciliation Center. With the efforts of Mediation and Conciliation Center, parties have arrived at a Crl. Misc. No. M- 26885 of 2008(O&M) -2- compromise/settlement. It has been decided that they will withdraw the cases filed by them against each other. It has also been agreed that Ajay Kumar-petitioner No. 1 will not seek custody of the minor child who is in custody of the mother. Petitioner No. 1 will pay Rs. 3.10 lacs vide a bank draft to the respondent. In view of the compromise, petitioner No.1 and respondent will move a petition seeking divorce on the basis of mutual consent under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Respondent will withdraw the petition filed by her seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No. 1 will withdraw the petition filed by him under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Petitioner No. 1 and respondent are present in person in Court. Petitioner No. 1 has handed over a bank draft of Rs. 3.10 lacs to the respondent. Both the sides have admitted the contents of the agreement/settlement arrived at between them before Mediation and Conciliation Center. Respondent who is present in person along with her counsel has not opposed the quashing of the complaint in question and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. 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. Crl. Misc. No. M- 26885 of 2008(O&M) -3- Central bureau of Investigation and another JT 2008 (9) SC 192 in paras 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 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, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings, in Crl. Misc. No. M- 26885 of 2008(O&M) -4- question. Accordingly this petition is allowed. complaint titled as “Narinder Kaur vs. Ajay Kumar and others” under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (Annexure P-7) and all consequential proceeding arising therefrom are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 11, 2009 PARAMJIT