IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. M No. 3164 of 2009
Date of Decision:March 16, 2009
Dr.Neena Gupta ...........Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ..........Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.S.S.Gill, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Petitioner present in person
Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai,Assistant Advocate
General, Punjab
Mr.K.S.Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.2
Respondent No. 2 in person.
**
Sabina, J.
Petitioner-Dr.Neena Gupta has filed this petition under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No.
96 dated 20.3.2006 under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC’
for short) registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala, District Patiala
as well as the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom on the basis of
compromise between the parties dated 15.1.2009 (Annexure P2).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a
case of cross-version. Petitioner had also lodged FIR against the
complainant. Now, with the intervention of the respectables, parties have
arrived at a compromise.
Respondent No.2 is present in person along with his counsel
and has admitted the contents of the compromise dated 15.1.2009
(Annexure P2), wherein, it has been agreed between the parties that both the
parties have resolved their disputes and would get both the FIRs i.e. FIR
Crl. Misc. M No. 3164 of 2009 -2-
No.96 dated 20.3.2006 under Section 304-A IPC of Police Station Civil
Lines, Patiala against Dr. Neena Gupta, wife of Dr.S.P.Gupta registered by
party No.1 and FIR No. 97 dated 20.3.2006 under Sections 452, 323, 427,
506, 148, 149 IPC of Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala was registered
against party No.1 by party No.2 quashed by filing petition under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
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
Crl. Misc. M No. 3164 of 2009 -3-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, in order to
live in peace, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding further
with the criminal proceedings.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 96 dated
20.3.2006 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala under Section
304-A IPC alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are
quashed .
( Sabina )
Judge
March 16, 2009
arya