In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc.-M No.1359 of 2009 (O&M) ..... Date of decision:28.1.2009 Sachin Jain and others .....Petitioners v. State of Haryana and another .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. A.K. Garg, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ajay Singh Ghangas, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State. Mr. Manish Garg, Advocate for the complainant. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners by way of the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.’ – for short) seek quashing of FIR No.252 dated 17.12.2008 (Annexure-P.1) registered at Police Station, Mahesh Nagar, District Ambala for the offences under Sections 406, 498-A, 323 and 506 Indian Penal Code (`IPC’ – for short) and all subsequent proceedings arising there from on the basis of the compromise dated 28.12.2008 (Annexure-P.2). The marriage between Sachin Jain (petitioner No.1) and Neetu Jain (respondent No.2) was solemnized on 12.6.2008. There is no issue from the marriage between the parties. Petitioners No.2, 3 and 4 are the father, mother and sister respectively of petitioner No.1. The complainant- Cr. Misc.-M No.1359/2009 (O&M) [2] Neetu Jain got registered the FIR (Annexure-P.1) alleging demand of dowry and she being beaten by the family of her in-laws. It is stated in the present petition that the FIR (Annexure-P.1) was got registered by respondent No.2 due to misunderstanding. Now with the intervention of the relatives and friends of both the parties the matter has been amicably settled by a compromise dated 28.12.2008 (Annexure-P.2) which has been recorded in this regard. The parties have decided to part ways. Besides, each of the party would be entitled to get divorce. Respondent No.2, it is stated, has received a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- in lieu of her claims regarding marriage expenses and future maintenance. There is nothing due between the parties. Respondent No.2 has also deposed an affidavit dated 9.1.2009 (Annexure- P.3) in which she has stated that she does not want to proceed with the present case against the petitioners. The complainant Neetu Jain (respondent No.2) is present in Court and is identified by her counsel. She has stated that she has no objection to the quashing of the FIR as the parties have decided to part their ways amicably. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, the State would have no serious objection to the quashing of the FIR in case the matrimonial dispute has been amicably settled between the parties. The matrimonial dispute that was there between the parties has been amicably settled. Both the parties have decided to part their ways amicably. Respondent No.2, who is the complainant has supported the quashing of the FIR. Therefore, in the circumstances, it would be improper Cr. Misc.-M No.1359/2009 (O&M) [3] to decline to exercise power of quashing as the continuation of the proceedings in pursuance of the impugned FIR would be an exercise in futility. In B.S. Joshi’s case (supra) it was held that if for securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. Therefore, this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction can quash criminal proceedings or FIR and Section 320 Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash FIR. In view of the above position, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and impugned FIR No.252 dated 17.12.2008 (Annexure- P.1) registered at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, District Ambala for the offences under Sections 406, 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC and all consequential and subsequent proceedings arising there from shall stand quashed. January 28, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*