Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurbhej Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 28 April, 2009
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. M No. 6663 of 2009
Date of Decision: April 28, 2009
Gurbhej Singh and another ...........Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.K.K.Saini, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai,Assistant Advocate General,Punjab
Mr.Vikrampreet Arora, Advocate for respondent No.3
Sabina, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 178 dated 30.8.2007 under Sections 420,406 , 506 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) registered at Police Station Fatehgarh Sahib, District Fatehgarh (Annexure P1) and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR on the basis of compromise between the parties dated 13.2.2009(Annexures P2 ).
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that now with the intervention of relatives and friends, parties have arrived at a compromise. The entire amount due has been paid to respondent No.3.
Respondent No.3 is present in person along with his counsel and has admitted the contents of the affidavit. Respondent No.3 has stated that he has received the money in question and had arrived at a compromise with the petitioners. He does not want to proceed against them and the case may be closed.
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 Crl. Misc. M No. 6663 of 2009 -2- 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 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 Crl. Misc. M No. 6663 of 2009 -3- 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 Criminal Misc. No.30801 of 2008 (O&M) 6 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. 178 dated 30.8.2007 registered at Fatehgarh Sahib, District Fatehgarh Sahib under Sections 420,406,506 IPC (Anneuxre P1) alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed .
( Sabina ) Judge April 28, 2009 arya