IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. M No. 3164 of 2009 Date of Decision:March 16, 2009 Dr.Neena Gupta ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.S.S.Gill, Advocate for the petitioners. Petitioner present in person Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai,Assistant Advocate General, Punjab Mr.K.S.Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.2 Respondent No. 2 in person. ** Sabina, J. Petitioner-Dr.Neena Gupta has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 96 dated 20.3.2006 under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala, District Patiala as well as the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom on the basis of compromise between the parties dated 15.1.2009 (Annexure P2). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a case of cross-version. Petitioner had also lodged FIR against the complainant. Now, with the intervention of the respectables, parties have arrived at a compromise. Respondent No.2 is present in person along with his counsel and has admitted the contents of the compromise dated 15.1.2009 (Annexure P2), wherein, it has been agreed between the parties that both the parties have resolved their disputes and would get both the FIRs i.e. FIR Crl. Misc. M No. 3164 of 2009 -2- No.96 dated 20.3.2006 under Section 304-A IPC of Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala against Dr. Neena Gupta, wife of Dr.S.P.Gupta registered by party No.1 and FIR No. 97 dated 20.3.2006 under Sections 452, 323, 427, 506, 148, 149 IPC of Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala was registered against party No.1 by party No.2 quashed by filing petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 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 Crl. Misc. M No. 3164 of 2009 -3- 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 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. 96 dated 20.3.2006 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala under Section 304-A IPC alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed . ( Sabina ) Judge March 16, 2009 arya