Criminal Misc. No.M-8850 of 2009 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No.M-8850 of 2009
Date of decision: 28.5.2009
Santosh Kumari
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.S.M.Sharma , Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab.
Mr.R.P.Kansal, 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.294 dated
7.8.2008 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 452/ 323/ 147/ 149 of the
Indian Penal Code (“IPC”- for short), registered at Police Station
Phase I, Mohali and a cross case i.e. DDR No.42 dated 7.8.2008
(Annexure P-2) under Sections 452/ 354/ 323/ 34 IPC in view of the
Criminal Misc. No.M-8850 of 2009 2
compromise dated 19.3.2009 (Annexure P-3) arrived at between the
parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that now
with the intervention of relatives and friends, parties have arrived at
a compromise. It is a case of cross-version.
Respondent No.2, who is present in person, along with
his counsel, has admitted the contents of the compromise (Annexure
P-3).
The petitioner is also present in person. Both petitioner
and respondent No.2 have submitted that they have no objection, if
the FIR as well the cross-version are quashed in view of the
compromise effected between them.
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
Criminal Misc. No.M-8850 of 2009 3
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?
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.”
Criminal Misc. No.M-8850 of 2009 4
Accordingly, no useful purpose would be served in
allowing these proceedings to continue. In view of above, the present
petition is allowed. FIR No.294 dated 7.8.2008 (Annexure P-1), under
Sections 452/ 323/ 147/ 149 IPC, Police Station Phase I, Mohali and
a cross case i.e. DDR No.42 dated 7.8.2008 (Annexure P-2) under
Sections 452/ 354/ 323/ 34 IPC and all the subsequent proceedings,
arising therefrom, are quashed.
(SABINA)
JUDGE
May 28, 2009
anita