IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-20101 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.1.2010 Varinder Kumar … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.A.K.Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Harinder S.Beniwal, DAG, Haryana. Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate for the complainant. Sabina J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C. for short) for quashing FIR No.11 dated 07.10.2006, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Saha District Ambala (Annexure P-1) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise effected between the parties (Annexure P-2 and P-3). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the parties have entered into a compromise with the intervention of relatives and friends. Sanjay Kumar-respondent No.2 who is present in the Court along with his counsel has admitted the contends of his affidavit (Annexure P-2), as per which, he 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. Crl.Misc.No.M-20101 of 2009 (O&M) Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Me rchant 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 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 settled their dispute in terms of the compromise (Annexures P-2 and P-3), no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the criminal proceedings in question. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.11 dated 07.10.2006, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Saha District Ambala (Annexure P-1) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise effected between the parties (Annexure P-2 and P-3) are quashed. [ Sabina ] Judge 21.1.2010 sd 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-20101 of 2009 (O&M) 3