Baldev Singh and Others vs State of Punjab and Others

Sabina, J.—Petitioners have filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashing of cross-version vide DDR No. 19 dated 11.2.2010 in Police Station Mehal Kalan under Sections 326/ 324/ 323/ 148/ 149 of the Indian Penal Code (''IPC'' for short) in FIR No. 5 dated 9.2.2010 (Annexure P-1/ T), registered at Police Station Mehalkalan District Barnala and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it was a case of version and cross-version. Both the sides had suffered injuries. Parties were closely related to each other and civil litigation was pending between the parties. Now with the intervention of the relatives and respectables of the area, parties have arrived at a compromise .

Respondent No. 4, who is present in Court in person along with his counsel, has admitted the factum of compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties as well as contents of his affidavit placed on record. He has submitted that he has no objection in case the FIR is ordered to be quashed.

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and Ors. v. 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, 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 these proceedings to continue.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Cross-version vide DDR No. 19 dated 11.2.2010 in Police Station Mehal Kalan under Sections 326/ 324/ 323/ 148/ 149 IPC in FIR No. 5 dated 9.2.2010 (Annexure P-1/ T), registered at Police Station Mehalkalan District Barnala and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.