In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M- 4151 of 2009 Date of Decision:March 24, 2009 Balwinder Singh and others ---Petitioners versus State of Punjab ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: By order Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab *** SABINA, J. The present case was taken up before the Mega Lok Adalat on 11.12.2008. Statement of Balwinder Singh, Jasbir Kaur and Baljit Kaur recorded before the Mega Lok Adalat is as under:- “The matter has been compromised between the parties and we have paid Rs. 2,25,000/- today in the court to the complaint as her past, present and future maintenance in lumpsum. All the terms and conditions of the compromise are written in the compromise dated 11.12.2008 Ex. C1. The same has been dictated by us in the presence of our counsel and after admitting the same we signed the same in the presence of the witnesses mentioned therein. We shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the said compromise. We will withdraw our all cases/applications pending in the courts or police authorities.” Crl. Misc. No. M- 4151 of 2009 -2- Statement of Simaranpreet Kaur-complainant recorded before the Mega Lok Adalat is as under:- “The matter has been compromised between the parties and I have received Rs. 2,25,000/- today in the court from the accused as past, present and future maintenance in lumpsum. All the terms and conditions of the compromise are written in the compromise dated 11.12.2008 Ex. C1. The same has been dictated by me in the presence of my counsel and after admitting the same I signed the same in the presence of my counsel and after admitting the same I signed the same in the presence of witnesses mentioned therein. We shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the said compromise. I shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the said compromise. I have no objection if the accused are acquitted in this case.” Parties have arrived at a compromise. Balwinder Singh had paid Rs. 2,25,000/- to Simranpreet Kaur in the Mega Lok Adalat towards past, present and future maintenance. The compromise effected between the parties is Ex. C1 and the contents of the same are admitted by both the parties. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M- 4151 of 2009 -3- 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M- 4151 of 2009 -4- compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.” None has appeared on behalf of the parties despite service. However, keeping in view the fact that the matter was compromised before the Mega Lok Adalat and parties had also made their statements admitting the contents of the compromise Ex. C1, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.173 dated 11.8.21005 under Sections 498-A, 420, 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at police Station, Ropar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 24, 2009 PARAMJIT