Crl. Misc. No. M- 26045 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 26045 of 2009 Date of Decision: July 22, 2010 Baldev Singh & others ........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & another ........Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Deepak Goyal, Advocate for Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. Ms. Anita Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate, for respondent No.2. SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR No.64 dated 20.3.2007, under Sections 406/498-A of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), Police Station Shimlapuri, District- Ludhiana and consequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the parties have arrived at a compromise with the intervention of the relatives and friends. Respondent No.2, who is present in person in the Court along with her counsel, has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties. She has further submitted that she has got a decree of divorce with Crl. Misc. No. M- 26045 of 2009 2 petitioner No.3 on the basis of mutual consent and she has received the amount in question as per the compromise. She has further submitted that she has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed. The statement made by respondent No.2 (Annexure P-3) in Crl. Misc. No. M-36438 of 2009 reads as under:- “I was married to the petitioner-Savraj Singh on 24.10.2005 at Ludhiana. Though, I and petitioner-Savraj Singh lived together as wife and husband, however, no child was born out of the wedlock. Due to temperamental differences, I and the petitioner-Savraj Singh could not continue to pull on together and are living separately since August, 206. I got registered an FIR No.64, dated 20.3.2007 at Police Station Shimlapuri, Ludhiana under Sections 406/498-A IPC against the petitioner and his family members which is pending trial. I have also filed one case for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Besides a C.O.C.P. No. 476 of 2008 against the petitioner. With the intervention of the respectables now I and the petitioner have decided to resolve our matrimonial dispute and part ways after obtaining a decree of divorce with mutual consent. I have also agreed to withdraw the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. For grant of maintenance as well as C.O.C.P. No. 476 of 2008. I shall have also no objection against the compounding of the criminal case registered against the petitioner and his other family members vide the FIR stated above. This is, however, subject to payment of lump sum amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. five lacs.) by the petitioner to me, out of which he has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 2.5 lacs today Crl. Misc. No. M- 26045 of 2009 3 itself, whereas the balance amount of Rs. 2.5 lacs shall be paid by him at the time when we will make a joint statement under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of 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, 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.26 and 24 has held as under :- “26. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M- 26045 of 2009 4 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 have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing these criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The FIR No.64 dated 20.3.2007, under Sections 406/498-A of IPC, Police Station Shimlapuri, District- Ludhiana and consequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed. (SABINA) July 22 , 2010 JUDGE Anand