Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tarsem Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab And Others on 18 May, 2009
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl.Misc.M No. 11299 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. M No. 11299 of 2009
Date of Decision:May 18, 2009
Tarsem Singh etc. ...........Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.Parveen Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai,Assistant Advocate
General, Punjab
Mr.Dinesh Nagar, Advocate for respondent No.2
**
Sabina, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 1 dated 3.1.2006 under Sections 326,323,325,324,506,148,149 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) registered at Police Station Purana Shalla, District Gurdaspur (Annexure P1) on the basis of compromise vide compromise deed dated 27.3.2009 (Annexure P2 ) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that now parties with the intervention of relatives and friends have arrived at a compromise.
Respondents No.2 to 7, who are present in person along with their counsel, have admitted the contents of the compromise and have Crl.Misc.M No. 11299 of 2009 2 stated that they have no objection, if the FIR in question is 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 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 Crl.Misc.M No. 11299 of 2009 3 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, in order to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the criminal proceedings.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 1 dated 3.1.2006 registered under Sections 326, 323, 325, 324, 506, 148, 149 IPC at Police Station Purana Shalla, District Gurdaspur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom,are quashed .
( Sabina ) Judge May 18, 2009 arya