Parmod Narayan Mittal and another vs State of Punjab and others

Sabina, J.—Petitioners have filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR No. 74 dated 28.05.2009 (Annexure P-1), u/s 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (''IPC'' for short), registered at Police Station Chherretta, Amritsara and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexures P-2 and P-3). Vide order dated 23.5.2012 the parties were directed to appear before the trial court for recording of their statements and the trial court was directed to send the report qua the genuineness of the compromise. The trial court after recording the statement of the parties, has sent the report. In the report it has been stated that the complainant had stated that compromise had been effected between the parties with the intervention of the respectables and the compromise had been Inspector Mukesh Kumar, has stated that after investigation of the case, the police has prepared untraced report in view of the compromise effected between the parties. effected of his own free will and without any pressure.

Learned State counsel, on instructions of Sub Inspector Mukesh Kumar, has stated that after investigation of the case, the police has prepared untraced report 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 u/s 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:-

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.

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. 74 dated 28.05.2009 (Annexure P-1), u/s 420, 120B IPC, registered at Police Station Chherretta, Amritsar and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.