Crl. Misc. No. M- 23744 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 23744 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 18, 2010 Ashwani Kumar @ Ashu and others ........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ........Respondents ******* CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Vijay Rana, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai,AAG, Punjab. Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. Respondents No.2 and 3 in person. SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.170 dated 20.10.2007, under Sections 307,323,324,506,34 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), registered at Police Station Division No.1, Jalandhar, District Jalandhar (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise dated 17.7.2010 executed between the parties and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom being illegal and abuse of the process of the court pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar titled as “State Vs. Ashwani Kumar @ Ashu and others” (Section 307 IPC was added subsequently). Crl. Misc. No. M- 23744 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that initially FIR was registered under Section 323,324,506/34 of IPC. Injuries on the person of the injured respondents No.2 and 3 were declared simple in nature. Thereafter during investigation offence under Section 307 IPC was added merely on the basis of the statement of the injured Manohar Lal who had stated that injuries were inflicted on his person with intention to kill him. Infact, no offence under Section 307 IPC was made out in this case. There was no medical opinion to the effect that the injuries on the person of the injured were dangerous to life. Rather the injures on the person of the injured were declared simple in nature. Now with the intervention of the relatives and friends the parties have arrived at a compromise. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 has not controverted the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. Respondents No.2 and 3, who are present in person along with their counsel, have admitted the factum of compromise between the parties and have tendered their affidavits wherein they have stated that they have 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 Crl. Misc. No. M- 23744 of 2010 (O&M) 3 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 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.” In the present case initially FIR was registered under Sections 323,324,506/34 IPC. It is only during investigation that injured Manohar Lal suffered a statement that injuries had been inflicted on his person with Crl. Misc. No. M- 23744 of 2010 (O&M) 4 intention to kill him. Although, the medical opinion was that the injuries on the person of injured were simple in nature yet on the basis of the statement of the injured offence under Section 307 IPC was added in this case. Prima facie, it appears that no offence under Section 307 IPC was made out in this case. Injuries on the person of respondents No.2 and 3 are simple in nature. Moreover, now the parties have arrived at a compromise. In these circumstances, it would be just and expedient to quash the FIR on the basis of compromise as the continuation of criminal proceedings would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The FIR No.170 dated 20.10.2007, under Sections 307,323,324,506,34 IPC, registered at Police Station Division No.1, Jalandhar, District Jalandhar and consequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed. (SABINA) November 18, 2010 JUDGE Anand