Crl. Misc. No. M-9061 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-9061 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: July 11, 2011 Harish Kumar and others .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana and another ........ RESPONDENT(S) AND Crl. Misc. No. M-41830 of 2007 Savitri Devi and another .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana and another ........ RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. S.S. Nara, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Gurjinder Singh, Advocate, for respondent no. 2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This shall dispose of two petitions namely Crl. Misc. No. M-9061 of 2008 entitled Harish Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and another and Crl. Misc. No. M-41830 of 2007 entitled Savitri Devi and another vs. State of Haryana and another, in view of the fact that both the cases involve same FIR and same complainant. 2. For reference to record, Crl. Misc. No. M-9061 of 2008 entitled Harish Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and another is being taken Crl. Misc. No. M-9061 of 2008 2 up. 3. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR bearing No. 199 dated 20.07.2007 under Sections 498- A/406 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Faridabad. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in the two petitions, contends that Sonia-respondent no. 2 was married to Harish Kumar-petitioner no. 1 (in Crl. Misc. No. M-9061 of 2008). There were matrimonial disputes, whereupon FIR bearing No. 199 dated 20.07.2007 under Sections 498- A/406 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Faridabad was lodged. 5. Learned counsel contends that during pendency of the petition, all the disputes between the parties have been settled by way of compromise, that has been placed on record as Annexure P-8. 6. The other petitioners are relatives of Harish Kumar, the husband. 7. Mr. Gurjinder Singh, Advocate has put in appearance for respondent no. 2-Sonia. Learned counsel states that indeed all the disputes between the parties have been settled by way of compromise. So much so, decree of divorce by mutual consent has already been granted. Sonia has been duly compensated in respect of her rights arising out of the matrimony. Learned counsel further states that continuance of the proceedings shall interfere in their peaceful life. 8. Considering the fact that learned counsel for the complainant, who happens to be the victim, has endorsed the factum of compromise and divorce by mutual consent has already been granted, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the FIR. 9. In view of the above, both the petitions are allowed. 10. FIR bearing No. 199 dated 20.07.2007 under Section 498-A/406 Crl. Misc. No. M-9061 of 2008 3 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Faridabad is hereby quashed. 11.07.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?