IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM-M-27011 of 2011 Decided on 23.12.2011 Balwinder Kaur and another --Petitioners vs. State of Punjab --Respondent AND CRM-M-39242 of 2011 (O&M) Decided on 23.12.2011 Balwinder Kaur and others --Petitioner vs. State of Punjab and another --Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.R.K.Jindal,Advocate, for the petitioners Mr.K.D.Sachdeva,Addl.A.A.G, Punjab Mr.GBS Gill,Advocate, for the complainant RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,J: (ORAL) This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing CRM-M- 27011 of 2011 titled as Balwindr Kaur and another Vs. State of Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the first petition) and CRM-M-39242 of 2011 titled as Balwinder Kaur and others Vs. State of Punjab and another (hereinafter referred to as the second petition). The first petition has been filed for pre arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.30 dated 04.8.2011, under Sections 406/498-A of IPC, at Police Station Women Cell, Bathinda, District,Bathinda, whereas the second petition is filed under Section 482 of CRM-M-27011 of 2011 -2- the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing of the aforesaid FIR and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. Notice was issued in the first petition on 07.2.2011 and interim bail was granted and an order was passed by this Court on 15.11.2011, which reads as under:- “Present: Mr.R.K.Jindal,Advocate, for the petitioners Mr.K.D.Sachdeva,Addl.A.G, Punjab Mr.GBS Gill,Advocate, for the complainant Pursuant to the order dated 08.11.2011, the petitioners as well as the complainant (wife) are present in the Court. They have orally come to a settlement that the petitioners would pay a sum of `2 lac in cash to the complainant (wife) and would not claim the gold jewellery which has already been recocvered by the police during investigation. It has also been agreed that the said jewellery, namely, one gold bangle and two gold rings lying with the Investigating Officer shall be handed over to the complainant/wife. It is clarified here that the aforesaid arrangement is towards permanent alimony for the complainant and her daughter. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for a long date to arrange the aforesaid amount of `2 lac. In view thereof, the matter is adjourned to 23.12.2011. Interim order to continue”. In view of the aforesaid understanding which had arrived at between the parties during the course of hearing of the first petition, the second petition has been filed for quashing of the FIR in question which is listed for preliminary hearing before this Court today. At this stage, on the asking of the Court, Mr.A.S.Rai, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1/State while Mr.GBS Gill, Advocate, has filed his power of attorney on behalf of the CRM-M-27011 of 2011 -3- complainant/respondent No/2, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2-Jagdip Kaur, is present in Court and is identified by her counsel Mr. GBS Gill. She has stated that she would comply with the order passed by this Court on 15.11.2011. In view thereof, learned counsel for the petitioners has given ` 2 lacs. to the complainant/respondent No.2 in Court today which have been counted by her and are found to be in order. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal ) 1052, and submitted that since the matter has been finally settled between the parties, therefore, pendency of these criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be an exrercise in futility as the complainant is not going to support the case of the prosecution. He has further submitted that first hour of justice is the hour of compormise and it is in the interest of both the parties that the FIR in question and all subsequent proceedings arising there from may be ordered to be quashed. After perusing the record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the second petition is allowed and the FIR No. 30 dated 04.8.2011, under Sections 406/498-A of IPC, at Police Station, Women Cell, Bathinda, District, Bathinda and all other subsequent proceedings arising there-from are quashed on the basis of compromise. In view of the fact that the FIR in question has been quashed in CRM-M-27011 of 2011 -4- the second petition, therefore, the first petition filed for pre arrest bail has become infructuous and is dismissed as such. 23.12.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge