IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. M No. 22161 of 2008 Date of Decision: February 16, 2009 Rajender Parshad Maurya and others ...........Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Sudhir Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Sidharath Sarup, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana Mr.Sanjay Vashisth,Advocate for respondent No.2 ** Sabina, J. Petitioners have filed this petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 113 dated 25.2.2006 under Sections 498-A, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) registered at Police Station City Bhiwani, and resultant proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner No.1 and complainant-respondent No. 2 were married on 13.12.1997 as per Hindu rites. Thereafter, the differences arose between them. Now, they have got their marriage dissolved by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Judgment in this regard is Annexure P11 dated 4.1.2007. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has placed on record reply by way of affidavit of respondent No.2, wherein, she has stated that she had no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. It is also stated in the affidavit that the parties had got a divorce by mutual consent. As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, Crl. Misc. M No. 22161 of 2008 -2- 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 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 Crl. Misc. M No. 22161 of 2008 -3- 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 Criminal Misc. No.30801 of 2008 (O&M) 6 arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.” Since the parties have already settled their dispute and petitioner No. 1 and respondent No.2 have got a decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 113 dated 25.2.2006 under Sections 498-A, 506, 34 IPC registered at Police Station City Bhiwani, and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed . ( Sabina ) Judge February 16, 2009 arya