IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.M-15502 of 2009 Date of decision: 12.10.2010 Smt.Shanti Devi and others ......Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT:Mr.R.S.Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.S.S.Mor, Sr.DAG, Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr.V.P.S.Mithiwal Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** ORDER The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been fled on behalf of petitioners Shanti Devi, Manjula Sharma and H.K.Sharma for quashing of order dated 15.12.2008 passed by JMIC, Panchkula framing charge-sheet (Annexure P-6), order dated 24.4.2009 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Panchkula (Annexure P-7) and FIR No.65 dated 18.5.2008 under Sections 406/498-A IPC registered at Police Station Sector 19, Panchkula. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter has been compromised between the parties and complainant -respondent No.2 Dr.Rekha has no objection in quashing of the aforesaid orders as well as FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that said FIR has been quashed in Crl.Misc.No.M-24126 Crl.Misc. No.M-15502 of 2009 [2] of 2010 on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties vide order dated 12.10.2010. Complainant-respondent No.2 Dr.Rekha is also present in the Court who has been identified by her counsel and on the asking of the Court, she has stated that Dr.Parveen Atre has settled all disputes with her and a sum of Rs.5 lacs have been paid to her as full and final settlement. Both the parties have already filed petition under Section 13(b) of Hindu Marriage Act at District Court Rohni, New Delhi and petitioners undertake to appear at the time of filing of second motion and she has no objection in setting aside of the aforesaid orders. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that continuation of impugned criminal proceedings between the parties would be an exercise in futility. The complainant herself does not want to pursue these proceedings and it shall be merely a formality and sheer wastage of precious time of the Court as complainant would not support the case of prosecution in view of compromise between the parties. It would be in the interest of the parties as well as in the large interest of the society to maintain peace and harmony and in order to save both the families from avoidable litigation that the compromise arrived at between them is accepted by this Court. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners who are mother, sister and brother-in-law of husband of the complainant for setting aside of the orders passed by the courts below on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. Crl.Misc. No.M-15502 of 2009 [3] Since the parties have effected compromise between the parties and FIR No.65 dated 18.5.2008 under Sections 406/498-A IPC registered at Police Station Sector 19, Panchkula, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom have been quashed in Crl.Misc.No.M-24126 of 2010 ( Dr.Praveen Atre and others v. State of Haryana and another) vide order dated 12.10.2010, the present petition is allowed and order dated 15.12.2008 passed by JMIC, Panchkula framing charge-sheet (Annexure P-6) and order dated 24.4.2009 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Panchkula (Annexure P-7) are set aside. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE October 12, 2010. raghav