Mukesh Kumar Bagga And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 25 February, 2009

      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh


                                Crl. Misc. No. M- 1575 of 2009
                                Date of Decision:February 25, 2009

Mukesh Kumar Bagga and another

                                            ---Petitioners

                   versus

State of Punjab and another

                                            ---Respondents

Coram:       HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

                 ***

Present:     Mr.Sandeep Arora ,Advocate,
             for the petitioners

             Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab

             Mr.G.S.Rawat, Advocate,
             for respondent No. 2

                   ***

SABINA, J.

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’)for quashing

of FIR No. 112 dated 5.7.2008 under Sections 295A, 34 of the Indian

Penal Code registered at Police Station, Division No. 1, Jalandhar on the

basis of compromise.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that now with

the intervention of the relatives and friends, parties have arrived at a

compromise.

Respondent No. 2 is present in person along with his counsel.

They have placed on record the original compromise dated 13.1.2009

effected between the parties. A perusal of the same reveals that respondent
Crl. Misc. No. M- 1575 of 2009 -2-

No. 2 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 paras

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
Crl. Misc. No. M- 1575 of 2009 -3-

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, no useful

purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings, in

question.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 112

dated 5.7.2008 under Sections 295A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code

registered at Police Station, Division No. 1, Jalandhar and all subsequent

proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

(SABINA)
JUDGE

February 25, 2009
PARAMJIT