In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No.M 8266 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 25.3.2009
Devender and others
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Gopal Sharma , Advocate,
for the petitioners.
****
SABINA, J.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short) for grant of
anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 221 dated 1.9.2008, under Sections
498-A, 406, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC” for short), registered
at Police Station Beri, District Jhajjar and all other consequent
proceedings therein, on the basis of compromise and affidavit
(Annexure P-4).
Notice of motion.
At the asking of Court, Mr.Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana
accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1, whereas, Mr.Ajay
Chhikara, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in
the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. parties have
compromised their disputes before the Lok Adalat.
Respondent No.2, who is present in person along with her
Criminal Misc. No.M 8266 of 2009 (O&M) -2-
counsel, has admitted the contents of her affidavit (Annexure P-4),
wherein she has stated that she 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
Criminal Misc. No.M 8266 of 2009 (O&M) -3-
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. 221
dated 1.9.2008, under Sections 498-A, 406, 34 IPC, registered at
Police Station Beri, District Jhajjar and all the subsequent
proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.
(SABINA)
JUDGE
March 25, 2009
anita