In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M- 4152 of 2009 Date of Decision:March 24, 2009 Ajit Singh ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: By order Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab *** SABINA, J. The present case was taken up before the Mega Lok Adalat on 21.12.2008. Statements of Satbir Singh Sandhu, Darshan Singh Dhaliwal and Ajit Singh were recorded and the same are reproduced hereunder:- Statement of Satbir Singh Sandhu “ I have compromised the matter with the accused. Now, we have decided to live peacefully with each other and in order to bring harmony in the society in future with the intervention of common friends and reached to a compromise on 15.11.2008. I have seen the original compromise dated 15.11.2008 which bears my signatures and the same is Ex. CX. I will be bound with the said compromise.” Statement of Darshan Singh Dhaliwal I am common friend of both the parties. The parties have Crl. Misc. No. M- 4152 of 2009 -2- decided to live peacefully in future and settled the matter in dispute finally. I have seen the compromise which bears my signatures. The same is Ex. CX. The above noted compromise is for the benefit of both the parties and to avoid multiplicity or litigation and to avoid confrontation between the parties. Statement of Ajit Singh “ I have compromised with the complainant regarding the matter in dispute. Now, the we have decided to live peacefully with each other and in order to bring harmony in the society in future with the intervention of common friends and reached to a compromise on 15.11.2008. I have seen the original compromise dated 15.11.2008 which bears my signatures and the same is Ex. CX. I will be bound with the said compromise.” Parties have arrived at a compromise. As per the same complainant has not objection if the accused was discharged. 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 paras Crl. Misc. No. M- 4152 of 2009 -3- 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 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.” None has appeared on behalf of the parties despite service. However, keeping in view the fact that the matter is compromised before Crl. Misc. No. M- 4152 of 2009 -4- the Mega Lok Adalat and parties had also made their statements admitting the contends of the compromise Ex.CX, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.509 dated 19.12.2003 under Sections 356, 341,506,323 of the Indian Penal Code registered at police Station, Mohali and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 24, 2009 PARAMJIT