IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. M No. 48683 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision:May 04, 2009 Manoj Kumar Juneja ...........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Vishal Garg, Advocate for Mr.Chetan Mittal,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sidharath Sarup,Assistant Advocate General, Haryana Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2 ** Sabina, J. Crl.Misc.22151 of 2009 Application is allowed. Memorandum of Understanding and others documents as Annexure P10 (Colly) are taken on record. Crl. Misc. M No. 48683 of 2007 Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 522 dated 3.10.2007 under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) registered at Police Station Civil Lines Karnal (Annexure P5) as well as order dated 25.9.2007(Annexure P6). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that now during the pendency of the petition, parties have arrived at a compromise. . Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has admitted that the compromise have been effected between the parties (Annexure P10) and has submitted that respondent No.2 has no objection, if the FIR in question is Crl. Misc. M No. 48683 of 2007 (O&M) -2- 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 arrived at, should at all be exercised? Crl. Misc. M No. 48683 of 2007 (O&M) -3- 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. 522 dated 3.10.2007 registered at Police Station Civil Lines Karnal under Sections 406,420 IPC (Anneuxre P5) as well as orde dated 25.9.2007 (Annexure P6) are quashed . ( Sabina ) Judge May 04, 2009 arya