In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M- 1279 of 2009 Date of Decision:February 11, 2009 Ram Parkash and others ---Petitioners versus State of Haryana and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. Ashok Kaushik,Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana Mr.J.S.Hooda, Advocate, for the complainant-respondent No. 2 *** SABINA, J. Petitioner- Ram Parkash and four others have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing FIR No. 139 dated 2.5.1999 under Sections 279, 304-A, 201 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Sadar Palwal, District Faridabad on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the parties belong to the same family and with the intervention of relatives and friends, they have arrived at a compromise. Complaint-respondent No. 2 is present in person along with her counsel. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has placed on record the Crl. Misc. No. M- 1279 of 2009 -2- original of affidavit dated 7.1.2009 of respondent No. 2. A perusal of the same reveals that the parties belong to the same community, caste and family. Now, with the intervention of relatives and friends they have decided to live in peace. As per the affidavit, respondent No. 2 has no objection in 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. In Nikhil Merchant vs. Central bureau of Investigation and another JT 2008 (9) SC 192 Hon'ble the Apex Court in paras 23 and 24, 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 Crl. Misc. No. M- 1279 of 2009 -3- 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.” Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 582 held as under:- “ We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and belong to Crl. Misc. No. M- 1279 of 2009 -4- the same family, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings, in question. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 139 dated 2.5.1999 under Sections 279, 304-A, 201 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Sadar Palwal, District Faridabad and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 11, 2009 PARAMJIT