Crl. Misc. No. M- 1678 of 2009 Date of Decision: March 21 & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 2424. 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…
Judgment
Mr. Sandeep Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana Mr.Pankaj Bali, Advocate, for respondent No. 2 *** SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.')for quashing of FIR No. 919 dated 28.12.2007 under Section 72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 registered at Police Station, City Hisar on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the parties have arrived at a compromise. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have got a decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent under Section 13-B Crl. Misc. No. M- 1678 of 2009 -2- of the Hindu Marriage Act. Petitioner No. 1 has paid Rs. 7 lacs to respondent No. 2 towards all her legitimate claims. It was also agreed between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 that they shall withdraw all the cases filed against each other in different courts.
Divorce petition was taken up for final decision in Mega Lok Adala t(Samadhan), 2008. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has admitted the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 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 paras 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 Crl. Misc. No. M- 1678 of 2009 -3- 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?
Operative part
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, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings, in question. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 919 dated 28.12.2007 under Section 72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 registered at Police Station, City Hisar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 21, 2009 PARAMJIT
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the present petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 72; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 21 Mar 2009. The bench was SABINA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.