Crl. Misc. No. M- 23757 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 23757 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 30, 2010 Ajmer Singh and others .......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ........Respondents ******* CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. M.S. Sachdev, Advocate, for respondent No.2 & 3. Respondent No.2 in person. SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the criminal complaint titled as 'Harpreet Singh Versus Ajmer Singh and others' bearing criminal complaint No.100/01/2009 dated 17.4.2009 filed by respondent No.2 under Sections 307,326,324,323,506/34,148,149 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar as well as summoning order dated 3.2.2007 vide which the petitioners were summoned to face trial under Sections 326,324,323,506,34,148,149 IPC and all other Crl. Misc. No. M- 23757 of 2010 (O&M) 2 subsequent proceedings arisen thereon on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2). Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it is a case of version and cross version. Randhir Singh, Parshotam Singh, Maninder Singh and Sukhjinder Singh are residing in Canada and they have all executed Special Power of Attorney in favour of Ajmer Singh s/o Ajit Singh. Now with the intervention of the relatives and friends parties have arrived at a compromise. Harpreet Singh @ Happy-respondent No.2 is present in person and respondent No.3 is represented by Ajmer Singh in whose favour Sukhjinder Singh @ Laddi, who is presently residing in Canada, has executed a Special Power of Attorney qua this case and they have admitted the contents of the compromise between the parties and have stated that they have no objection if the criminal complaint in question is ordered to be quashed qua all the accused. Respondent No.2 has tendered his affidavit in this regard. 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.26 and 24 has held as under :- Crl. Misc. No. M- 23757 of 2010 (O&M) 3 “26. 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 facts. 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 the 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 have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing these criminal proceedings to continue. Moreover, accused were not summoned to face the trial for an offence under Section 307 IPC Crl. Misc. No. M- 23757 of 2010 (O&M) 4 Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The criminal complaint No.100/01/2009 dated 17.4.2009, under Sections 307,326,324,323,506/34,148,149 IPC as well as summoning order dated 3.2.2007 and consequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed qua all the accused. (SABINA) September 30, 2010 JUDGE Anand