In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. M- 1678 of 2009
Date of Decision:March 21, 2009
Sandeep Jain and others
---Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and another
---Respondents
Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
***
Present: Mr. Sandeep Jain,Advocate,
for the petitioners
Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana
Mr.Pankaj Bali, 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. 919 dated 28.12.2007 under Section 72 of the Information
Technology Act, 2000 registered at Police Station, City Hisar on the basis
of compromise.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the parties
have arrived at a compromise. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have
got a decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent under Section 13-B
Crl. Misc. No. M- 1678 of 2009 -2-
of the Hindu Marriage Act. Petitioner No. 1 has paid Rs. 7 lacs to
respondent No. 2 towards all her legitimate claims. It was also agreed
between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 that they shall withdraw all
the cases filed against each other in different courts. Divorce petition was
taken up for final decision in Mega Lok Adala t(Samadhan), 2008.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has admitted the
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
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
Crl. Misc. No. M- 1678 of 2009 -3-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 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. 919
dated 28.12.2007 under Section 72 of the Information Technology Act,
2000 registered at Police Station, City Hisar and all subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom are quashed.
(SABINA)
JUDGE
March 21, 2009
PARAMJIT