Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tejinder Singh @ Switi vs State Of Haryana And Another on 28 August, 2012
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl.Misc. M No.29853 of 2009(O&M)
Date of decision: 28.8.2012
Tejinder Singh @ Switi ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.B.S.Dhillon, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav,Addl.A.G. Haryana
Respondent No. 2 in person along with
Mr.Virender Kumar, Advocate.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No. 141 dated 9.5.2009 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 420,406,506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC') and Section 10/24 of the Immigration Act ('the Act' for short), registered at Police Station Pehowa District Kurukshetra and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the parties have arrived at a compromise with the intervention of the Crl.Misc. M No.29853 of 2009(O&M) -2- relatives and respectables of the area.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that Mohar Singh-respondent No.2 is residing at abroad and he has authroized his son- Lakhbir Singh to appear on his behalf.
A perusal of the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2 by way of affidavit of Lakhbir Singh reveals that respondent No.2 has already received the amount of ` 1,00,000/- in question and has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed in view of the compromise effected between the parties.
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 Crl.Misc. M No.29853 of 2009(O&M) -3- 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 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 and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing these proceedings to continue.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 141 dated 9.5.2009 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 420, 406, 506 Crl.Misc. M No.29853 of 2009(O&M) -4- IPC and Section 10/24 of the Act registered at Police Station Pehowa District Kurukshetra and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.
(Sabina) Judge August 28, 2012 arya