Criminal Misc. No.M-13435 of 2009 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No.M-13435 of 2009
Date of decision: 28.5.2009
Khazan Chand
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Munish Behl, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab.
Ms.Poonam Tara, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
****
SABINA, J.
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.181 dated
8.12.2008 (Annexure P-1), under Section 379 of the Indian Penal
Code (“IPC”- for short), registered at Police Station Division No.5,
Jalandhar and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom in
view of the compromise dated 11.5.2009 (Annexure P-3) arrived at
Criminal Misc. No.M-13435 of 2009 2
between the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that FIR
in question was a result of matrimonial dispute between the
complainant and his wife. The petitioner is father-in-law of
respondent No.2/complainant. Now with the intervention of relatives
and friends, parties have arrived at a compromise.
Respondent No.2, who is present in person, along with
his counsel, has admitted the contents of the compromise (Annexure
P-3) and has 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
Criminal Misc. No.M-13435 of 2009 3
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?
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.”
Accordingly, no useful purpose would be served in
allowing these proceedings to continue. In view of above, the present
Criminal Misc. No.M-13435 of 2009 4
petition is allowed. FIR No.181 dated 8.12.2008 (Annexure P-1),
under Section 379 IPC, registered at Police Station Division No.5,
Jalandhar and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom,
are quashed.
(SABINA)
JUDGE
May 28, 2009
anita