SABINA,J. - (1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR No. 97 dated 13.10.2008, under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Rangar Nangal (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that now with the intervention of relatives and friends, parties have arrived at a compromise. Respondent No. 2 is present in person and has admitted the factum of compromise with petitioner Sukhdev Singh and has stated that he has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed qua the petitioner. He has tendered on record his affidavit in this regard. 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.
(3.) 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 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." ;