Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohinder Singh vs State Of Punjab & Another on 10 March, 2010
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl. Misc. No. M- 15320 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M- 15320 of 2009
Date of Decision: March 10, 2010
Mohinder Singh ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & another ........Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Vipan Mahajan, Advocate for
Mr. Kulbhushan Soi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. G.S. Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.
None for the complainant.
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing the FIR No.293 dated 12.10.2006, under Sections 353,186,506 of I.P.C., Police Station Sadar Ferozepur, District- Ferozepur and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the parties are colleagues and have arrived at a compromise. The matter was taken up before Mega Lok Adalat, Ferozepur where the complainant has made statement that he has no grudge against the petitioner as the petitioner has promised not to do such like acts in future. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Manjit Sahdev Crl. Misc. No. M- 15320 of 2009 2 and another v. State of U.T. Chandigarh, 2006 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal)
774. As per the allegations in the complaint, petitioner had threatened the complainant and also used abusive and unparliamentary language.
Dalbir Singh Sandhu, respondent No.2 is present in Court and has been identified by Head Constable Paramjit Singh, who has come to assist the learned State Counsel. He has admitted the contents of his affidavit (Annexure P-4), his statement before the Mega Lok Adalat and has submitted that he has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M- 15320 of 2009 3 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 facts. 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 the 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, who are working in the same office, have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing these criminal proceedings to continue.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The FIR No.293 dated 12.10.2006, under Sections 353,186,506 of I.P.C., Police Station Sadar Ferozepur, District- Ferozepur and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.
(SABINA)
March 10, 2010 JUDGE
Anand