In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No.M-6808 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 18.3.2009
Satinder Singh and others ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Aman Deep Singh Rai, A.A.G, Punjab.
Mr.G.P.Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.
****
SABINA, J.
CRM No. 13369 of 2009
Notice of the application seeking preponment of the case.
At the asking of Court, Mr.Aman Deep Singh Rai, A.A.G,
Punjab has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.1, whereas,
Mr.G.P.Singh, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent
No.2.
At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the main
case is taken up for disposal today.
Application stands disposed of accordingly.
CRM No.M-6808 of 2009
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C. for short) for quashing
FIR No. 6 dated 9.1.2009 under Sections 379/ 354/ 323/ 34 of the
Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short), registered at Police Station
Ghaine Ke Bngar, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur and all
other proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise
(Annexure P-1) arrived at between the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
parties have arrived at a compromise with the intervention of the
relatives and respectables of the area.
Compromise deed duly signed by the parties is annexed
as Annexure P-1. A perusal of the same reveals that the matter
between the parties has been compromised and respondent No. 2
does not want to proceed against the petitioners.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has placed on
record an affidavit of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is present
in person and has admitted the contents of the compromise
(Annexure P-1) as well as the affidavit, wherein it has been stated
that he has no objection if 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 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
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 proceedings to continue.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 6
dated 9.1.2009 under Sections 379/ 354/ 323/ 34 IPC, registered at
Police Station Ghaine Ke Bngar, Police District Batala, District
Gurdaspur and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom,
are quashed.
(SABINA)
JUDGE
March 19, 2009
anita