Crl. Misc. No. M- 33070 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 33070 of 2009 Date of Decision: March 16, 2010 Harnek Singh and others ........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab etc. ........Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. Mr. R.K. Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2. SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing cross version (Annexure P-2) dated 27.08.2008, under Sections 323,341,148,149 IPC, recorded in FIR (Annexure P-1) No.182 dated 26.8.2008, under Sections 324,326,148,149 IPC, Police Station Phillaur and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. At the time of issuance of notice of motion following order was passed on 25.11.2009:- “Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Arshvinder Singh, DAG, Punjab accept notice on behalf of the State and Mr. R.K. Singla, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf Crl. Misc. No. M- 33070 of 2009 2 of the respondent No.2. On consensual basis, it is ordered that the parties shall make their statements owning up the compounding before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phillaur on 01.12.2009. After recording their statements, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phillaur shall forward the papers to the Registry of this Court. Adjourned to 04.12.2009.” Learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phillaur has sent the report that the statements of the complainant as well as accused have been recorded and they have stated that they have arrived at a compromise of their own free will and without any pressure from anyone. In the report dated 02.12.2009, it was mentioned that the report was being sent in Crl. Misc. No. M-16136 of 2009. Now vide letter dated 11.02.2010 Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phillaur has stated that in fact the report has been sent in Crl. Misc. No.M-33070 of 2009 and due to inadvertence the number of the Crl. Misc. has been written as Crl. Misc. No.M-16136 of 2009. 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- 33070 of 2009 3 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 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 the FIR Crl. Misc. No. M- 33070 of 2009 4 No.182 dated 26.08.2008, under Sections 324,326,148,149 IPC, Police Station Phillaur, District- Jalandhar has already been quashed, the present cross version arising out of the said FIR is also liable to be quashed on the basis of the compromise. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The cross version (Annexure P-2) dated 27.08.2008, under Sections 323,341,148,149 IPC, recorded in FIR (Annexure P-1) No.182 dated 26.8.2008, under Sections 324,326,148,149 IPC, Police Station Phillaur and subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed. (SABINA) March 16, 2010 JUDGE Anand