Criminal Misc. No.M- 32578 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M- 32578 of 2008 Date of decision: 10.3.2009 Bakhshish Singh ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Vikrampreet Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. Ms.Poonam Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** SABINA, J. Petitioner Bakshish Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.”) for quashing FIR No.5 dated 2.2.2006 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 406/498-A of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Mulepur in view of the compromise/statement given before the Pre- Lok Adalat, Fatehgarh Sahib (Annexure P-2) by respondent No.2 on Criminal Misc. No.M- 32578 of 2008 2 14.11.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner was married to respondent No.2 on 16.1.2003. Thereafter, difference arose between them and ultimately they had got decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent. Compromise/Statement of respondent No.2 recorded before the Pre-Lok Adalat, Fatehgarh Sahib is annexed as Annexure P-2. A perusal of the same reveals that she has received back all her dowry articles from the petitioner and now nothing remained due against the petitioner. She has received Rs.2,30,000/- in lump sum towards past, present and future maintenance. She undertook that she would make a statement in the Court for acquittal of the petitioner and his other family members with regard to FIR in question. In case the petitioner filed a petition for quashing of FIR, she would make a statement that the FIR be quashed. She would withdraw the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has admitted the genuineness of the contents of the statement made by respondent No.2. 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 Criminal Misc. No.M- 32578 of 2008 3 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? 24.On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this Criminal Misc. No.M- 32578 of 2008 4 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 respondent No.2 has been paid lump sum amount of maintenance and the parties have settled all their other litigation, no useful purpose would be served in allowing these proceedings to continue. Petitioner and respondent No.2 have got a decree of divorce by way of mutual consent. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No.5 dated 2.2.2006 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 406/498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Mulepur and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioner as well as his co- accused, are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 10, 2009 anita