IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M. No. M-6736 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 01.09.2011 Mota Singh and Ors. ..Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and Anr. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Petitioner No. 1 in person alongwith Mr. Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. G.S. Brar, AAG, Punjab. Respondent No. 2 in person alongwith Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No. 2. **** SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.PC') seeking quashing of FIR No. 20, dated 5.3.2004 registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 354, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') at Police Station Civil Lines, Police District Batala alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that now with the intervention of the relatives and friends the parties have arrived at a compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that petitioner No. 3 and respondent No. 2 have got a decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent and now both of them have got remarried. Mota Singh, petitioner No. 1, who is present in person has stated that he will withdraw the complaint filed by him against the respondent No. 2 and her relatives under Section 500 IPC, which is pending for 1.11.2011 before the trial Court. Respondent No. 2 , who is present in person alongwith her Crl. M. No. M-6736 of 2010 (O&M) -2- counsel has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties and the contents of the affidavit (Annexure P-2). She has stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be 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. 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 Crl. M. No. M-6736 of 2010 (O&M) -3- 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 arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The FIR No. 20, dated 5.3.2004 registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 354, 506 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Police District Batala and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. Petitioner No. 1 will remain bound by his statement qua withdrawal of the complaint filed by him against respondent No. 2 and her family members. (SABINA) September 01, 2011 JUDGE Poonam (II)