In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. M- 385 of 2009
Date of Decision:March 03, 2009
Harbhajan Singh and another
---Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and another
---Respondents
Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
***
Present: Mr.Rahul Rampal,Advocate,
for the petitioners
Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab
Mr.Rahul Chhatwal, Advocate,
for respondent No. 2
***
SABINA, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’)for quashing
of FIR No. 152 dated 13.7.2004 under Sections 304, 323, 506, 34 of the
Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Division No. 6, Ludhiana on
the basis of compromise.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that now
with the intervention of relatives and friends, parties have arrived at a
compromise dated 2.1.2009(Annexure P-2).
Learned State counsel has submitted that the prosecution has
presented the cancellation report.
Respondent No. 2 is present in person along with her
Crl. Misc. No. M- 385 of 2009 -2-
counsel and has admitted the contents of the affidavit (Annexure P-2) and
her affidavit dated 2.1.2009 (Annexure P-3). Perusal of Affidavit of
respondent No. 2(Annexure P-3) reveals that she has no grudge against the
petitioner and she did not want to pursue the present case and has no
objection in the FIR in question is 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 paras
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
Crl. Misc. No. M- 385 of 2009 -3-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.”
Since the parties have arrived at a compromise, no useful
purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings, in
question.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 152
dated 13.7.2004 under Sections 304, 323, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal
Code registered at Police Station, Division No. 6, Ludhiana and all
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
(SABINA)
JUDGE
March 03, 2009
PARAMJIT