Criminal Misc. No.M-8850 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-8850 of 2009 Date of decision: 28.5.2009 Santosh Kumari ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.S.M.Sharma , Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. Mr.R.P.Kansal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** SABINA, J. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.294 dated 7.8.2008 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 452/ 323/ 147/ 149 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”- for short), registered at Police Station Phase I, Mohali and a cross case i.e. DDR No.42 dated 7.8.2008 (Annexure P-2) under Sections 452/ 354/ 323/ 34 IPC in view of the Criminal Misc. No.M-8850 of 2009 2 compromise dated 19.3.2009 (Annexure P-3) arrived at between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that now with the intervention of relatives and friends, parties have arrived at a compromise. It is a case of cross-version. Respondent No.2, who is present in person, along with his counsel, has admitted the contents of the compromise (Annexure P-3). The petitioner is also present in person. Both petitioner and respondent No.2 have submitted that they have no objection, if the FIR as well the cross-version are quashed in view of the compromise effected between them. 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 Criminal Misc. No.M-8850 of 2009 3 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? 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.” Criminal Misc. No.M-8850 of 2009 4 Accordingly, no useful purpose would be served in allowing these proceedings to continue. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. FIR No.294 dated 7.8.2008 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 452/ 323/ 147/ 149 IPC, Police Station Phase I, Mohali and a cross case i.e. DDR No.42 dated 7.8.2008 (Annexure P-2) under Sections 452/ 354/ 323/ 34 IPC and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 28, 2009 anita