High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Santosh Kumari And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 13 January, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Santosh Kumari And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 13 January, 2009
      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

                       Crl.Misc.No.M- 3820 of 2005 (O&M)
                       Date of decision: 13.01.2009

Santosh Kumari and another                             ......Petitioners

                       Versus

State of Haryana and another                       .......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

Present:   Mr.Satinder Khanna, Advocate,
           for the petitioners.

           Mr.Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana.

         Mr.Tejinder Joshi, Advocate,
         for respondent No.2.
               ****
SABINA, J.

Today CRM No. 40918 of 2008 was listed for hearing

praying for stay of further proceedings. However, with the consent of

the learned counsel for the parties, the main case is taken up for

hearing as the parties have arrived at a compromise.

The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482

of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No.22 dated

7.1.2004 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 218, 420, 465, 466, 468,

471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”- for short) registered

at Police Station NIT Faridabad.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a

civil litigation had also taken place between the parties and during

the pendency of RSA No.710 of 2007, a compromise was effected

between the parties. A copy of the said compromise has been

placed on record as Annexure P-10. A perusal of para 8 of the said

compromise reveals that the parties had decided that they would

withdraw all cases, civil, criminal and any nature pending before any
Crl.Misc.No.M- 3820 of 2005 (O&M) -2-

Court against each other.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has placed on

record an affidavit of respondent No.2 wherein, he has deposed that

he has no objection in case the FIR in question and all

consequential proceedings are quashed.

Since the parties have reached a compromise and have

decided to live in peace, present proceedings, even if allowed to

continue, would end in wasting the time of the court. 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.

Accordingly, no useful purpose would be served in

allowing these proceedings to continue. In view of above, the present

petition is allowed. The FIR No. 22 dated 7.1.2004 (Annexure P-1),

under Sections 218, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC

registered at Police Station NIT Faridabad and all the subsequent

proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

SABINA)
JUDGE
January 13, 2009
anita