IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. M No. 10590 of 2009 Date of Decision:May 14, 2009 Parveen Sharma and others ...........Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Harminder Jeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms.Maloo Chahal, Deputy Advocate General,Haryana ** Sabina, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 621 dated 13.11.2004 under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) registered at Police Station City Jamuna Nagar on the basis of compromise and all consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR . Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the present FIR was a result of the matrimonial dispute between the parties. He has further submitted that now parties with the intervention of relatives and friends have settled all their disputes. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have got their marriage dissolved by way of mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 vide Anneuxre P2 decided by this Court on 11.2.2009. Respondent No.2-Jyoti Sharma is present in person and has Crl. Misc. M No. 10590 of 2009 -2- been identified by ASI Chattar Singh who is present in Court to assist the learned counsel for the State. Respondent No.2 has admitted the contents of the agreement/settlement (Annexure P1) wherein, it has been stated that she has no objection, if the FIR in question is 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 is required to be answered in this case is whether the Crl. Misc. M No. 10590 of 2009 -3- 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, in order to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 621 dated 13.11.2004 under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 IPC registered at Police Station City Jamuna Nagar and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom,are quashed . ( Sabina ) Judge May 14, 2009 arya IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. M No. 10592 of 2009 Date of Decision:May 14, 2009 Vishal Walia ...........Petitioner Versus U.T.Chandigarh and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Raman Walia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Paramjit Jakhar, Advocate for Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate for UT Chandigarh Ms.Alka Sarin, Advocate for respondent No.2 ** Sabina, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 296 dated 22.8.2003 under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) registered at Police Station Sector 34, Chandigarh (Annexure P1) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P2) as well as all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR . Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the now parties with the intervention of relatives and friends have settled all their disputes. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have got their marriage dissolved by way of mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955. Respondent No.2-Geeta has been paid lump-sum maintenance qua her as well as for the minor child. Parties have arrived at a decision with regard to the custody of the minor child. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has stated that the Crl. Misc. M No. 10592 of 2009 -2- entire lump-sum maintenance amount has been received by respondent No.2. Learned counsel has admitted the contents of the compromise and has also stated that now the parties had got a decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent. Respondent No.2 has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed in view of para 2(iii) of the compromise. 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. M No. 10592 of 2009 -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.” Since the parties have arrived at a compromise, in order to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 296 dated 22.8.2003 under Sections 406, 498-A, registered at Police Station City Sector 34, Chandigarh and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom,are quashed . ( Sabina ) Judge May 14, 2009 arya IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. M No. 10650 of 2009 Date of Decision:May 14, 2009 Rajesh Kumar and another ...........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Satnam Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai,Assistant Advocate General,Punjab Mr.Ram Bilas Gupta,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. 236 dated 18.11.2007 under Sections 448,511,427,506,148,149 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) registered at Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur on the basis of compromise . Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that now parties with the intervention of relatives and friends have settled all their disputes. Respondent No.2-Mohinder Singh, who is present in person along with his counsel has admitted the contents of the compromise (Annexure P1) and affidavit of respondent has also been placed on record. As per the compromise as well as the affidavit, respondent No.2 has no objection, if the FIR in question is quashed. As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Crl. Misc. M No. 10650 of 2009 -2- 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 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 Crl. Misc. M No. 10650 of 2009 -3- 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, in order to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 236 dated 18.11.2007 under Sections 448,511, 427,506,148,149 IPC registered at Police Station Mahilpur District Hoshiarpur and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom,are quashed . ( Sabina ) Judge May 14, 2009 arya IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. M No. 10864 of 2009 Date of Decision:May 14, 2009 Gulshan Singh and another ...........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Gurmohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai,Assistant Advocate General,Punjab Mr.S.Kumar,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. 105 dated 6.11.2008 under Sections 420,467,468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) registered at Police Station Division No.8, District Ludhiana (Annexure P2) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P1). Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the now parties with the intervention of relatives and friends have settled all their disputes. Respondent No.2-Avtar Singh, who is present in person along with his counsel has admitted the contents of the compromise (Annexure P1) and his affidavit (Annexure P3). As per the same, respondent No.2 has no objection, if the FIR in question is quashed. As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Crl. Misc. M No. 10864 of 2009 -2- 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 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 Crl. Misc. M No. 10864 of 2009 -3- 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, in order to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 105 dated 6.11.2008 under Sections 420,467,468 and 471 IPC registered at Police Station Division No.8 District Ludhiana (Annexure P2) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom,are quashed . ( Sabina ) Judge May 14, 2009 arya IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. M No. 10930 of 2009 Date of Decision:May 14, 2009 Balraj Singh ...........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Puneet Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Maloo Chahal,Deputy Advocate General,Haryana Mr.R.S.Madan,Advocate for respondent No.2 ** Sabina, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 144 dated 26.12.2005 under Sections 420,406,323,506,120-B,467,468,471 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) registered at Police Station Farrukhnagar and all other proceedings held in pursuance to the FIR on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the now parties with the intervention of relatives and friends have settled all their disputes. Respondent No.2-Jagpal Singh Yadav, who is present in person along with his counsel has admitted the contents of the compromise and his affidavit (Annexure P3) wherein it has been stated that respondent No.2 has no objection, if the FIR in question is quashed. As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Crl. Misc. M No. 10930 of 2009 -2- 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 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 Crl. Misc. M No. 10930 of 2009 -3- 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, in order to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 144 dated 26.12.2005 under Sections 420,406,323,506,120-B,467,468,471 IPC registered at Police Station Farrukhnagar (Annexure P1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom,are quashed . ( Sabina ) Judge May 14, 2009 arya IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. M No. 10945 of 2009 Date of Decision:May 14, 2009 Vinay Yadav and another ...........Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms.Maloo Chahal,Deputy Advocate General,Haryana Mr.Vinod Bhardwaj,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. 314 dated 29.8.2007 under Sections 406, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) registered at Police Station Sadar, Ambala Cantt (Annexure P1) as well as the subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR on the basis of compromise (Annexure P2). Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the parties have arrived at a compromise and now the settled due amount has been paid by the petitioners to respondent No.2 by way of demand draft, which has since been encashed. Smt.Naginder Kaur Bedi, Branch Manager who is present in person along with her counsel has admitted the contents of the compromise (Annexure P2) and she has stated that draft submitted by the petitioners Crl. Misc. M No. 10945 of 2009 -2- has since been encashed and now nothing remains due against the petitioners. Corporation has no objection if the FIR in question is 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 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 Crl. Misc. M No. 10945 of 2009 -3- 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 the due amount has been paid by the petitioners to the Corporation, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 314 dated 29.8.2007 under Sections 406,420,120-B IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Ambala Cantt. (Annexure P1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom,are quashed . ( Sabina ) Judge May 14, 2009 arya IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. M No. 11695 of 2009 Date of Decision:May 14, 2009 Harbail Singh and others ...........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.L.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate General,Punjab Mr.D.S.Sidhu,Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5 ** Sabina, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 46 dated 18.3.2009 under Sections 326/324/323/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) registered at Police Station Dharamkot, District Moga (Annexure P1) on the statement of respondent No.1 Ajaib Singh for allowing the compounding of abovesaid offences in the abovesaid FIR on the basis of compromise dated 27.3.2009 (Annexure P3) and with a further prayer for quashing the cross version case registered on the statement of petitioner No.1 Harbail Singh under Sections 326/324/323/34