Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunil Chawla & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 29 July, 2011
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-34227of 2010
Date of decision: 29.07.2011
Sunil Chawla & Ors. ..Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & Anr. ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA.
Present: Mr. M.K. Garg, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Amandeep Singh, A AG, Haryana.
Respondent No. 2 in person alongwith her counsel.
Mr. Manjit Singh, Advocate
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 106 dated 30.4.2010 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 420/423/463/464/466/467/ 468/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Ambala and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom as the parties have arrived at amicable settlement.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the parties have arrived at a compromise with the intervention of the relatives and respectables and friends. Petitioner No. 1 had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance and the same has been got dismissed as withdrawn by him.
Respondent No. 2 is present in person alongwith her Crl. Misc. No. M-34227 of 2010 -2- counsel and has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties. and has tendered her affidavit wherein she has stated that she has no objection if the FIR 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-34227 of 2010 -3- 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 the criminal proceedings to continue.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. FIR No. 106 dated 30.4.2010 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 420/423/463/464/466/467/468/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Ambala and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.
(SABINA) 29.07.2011 JUDGE Poonam (II) CRM No. 36435 of 2011 in CRM No. M-34227 of 2010 (O&M) Present: M.K. Garg, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Amandeep Singh, AAG, Haryana.
Respondent No. 2 in person alongwith her counsel. Mr. Manjit Singh, Advocate.
*** CRM No. 36435 of 2011 Application is allowed as prayed for.
Short affidavit of respondent No. 2 is taken on record.
(SABINA) 29.07.2011 JUDGE Poonam (II)