IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-15067 of 2010 Date of decision : 1.7.2010 Ashok Kumar …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ….. Respondent Present : Mr. Amit Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.S. Salana, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Harjot Singh Bedi, Advocate for respondent No.2 with respondent No.2 in person. *** S.S. SARON, J. Reply of Mrs. Lakhwinder Kaur (respondent No.2) filed in Court today along with Vakalatnama is taken on record. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner who is the husband of the complainant (respondent No.2) seeks quashing of FIR No.46 dated 31.3.2003 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Balchaur, Distt. Nawanshahr for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The marriage of the petitioner and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 29.1.1998 at Balachaur. However, on account of differences between them, the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) was registered. After the police investigated the case and filed charge Crl. Misc. No. M-15067 of 2010 [2] report (challan), the co-accused of the petitioner were not sent up for trial and were kept in column No.2 of the charge report (challan). The learned trial Court framed charges against the petitioner. During the pendency of the proceedings on 29.4.2010 with the intervention of respectable persons, a compromise (Annexure P2) was effected between the parties. In view of the compromise, it is prayed that the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2 has been amicably resolved. Therefore, the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) is liable to be quashed. In the short reply filed by respondent No.2, it is stated that on advice of the respectables, respondent No.2 has effected a compromise with the petitioner. She has already been paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- at the time of compromise; besides a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- is to be paid. The petitioner had tendered a draft No.825797 dated 28.6.2010 drawn on the State Bank of India, Nawanshahr Branch for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-. The same has been handed over to the complainant/respondent No.2 who is present in Court and is identified by her counsel and the same has been accepted by her. Respondent No.2 has stated that she has no objection to the quashing of FIR (Annexure P1). It is stated by her that she is making her statement of her own free will and desire and without any kind of pressure or undue influence. Learned State counsel has submitted that in case the matrimonial dispute has been amicably settled, the State would have no serious objection to the quashing of the FIR. In B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 it has held by the Supreme Court that for Crl. Misc. No. M-15067 of 2010 [3] the purpose of securing the ends of justice, if quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. Besides, the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in the case of a matrimonial dispute and Section 320 CrPC does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. In respect of matrimonial cases, it was rather held that it is the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. In the present case, the matrimonial dispute has been amicably settled and the parties have decided to part their ways. It is also submitted that a joint petition for dissolution of marriage has been filed in the District Court at Nawanshahr which is fixed for 14.12.2010. In view of the above, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No.46 dated 31.3.2003 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Balachaur, District Nawanshahr for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and all subsequent and consequential proceedings arising therefrom shall stand quashed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE July 1, 2010 amit