Criminal Misc. No.M-10421 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-10421 of 2011 Date of Decision : 25.07.2011 Pritam Kaur & others .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present : Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab Mr. Vineet Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. * * * * L.N.MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Pritam Kaur and four others have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short, Cr. P.C.), for quashing FIR No.98 dated 25.08.2009 (Annexure P-2) under Sections 406 and 498-A of IPC registered at Police Station Dasuya, Distt. Hoshiarpur, in view of compromise effected between the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Compromise was effected in Criminal Miscellaneous No.M- 16993 of 2010, which had been filed by petitioners No.1 and 2 herein for anticipatory bail in the same FIR. Terms of the compromise are mentioned in order Annexure P-1 dated 14.12.2010 passed in the said anticipatory bail petition. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant on instruction from complainant, who is also present in person in the Court, Criminal Misc. No.M-10421 of 2011 -2- states that parties have effected compromise as per terms mentioned in order Annexure P-1 and therefore, respondent No.2-complainant has no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. It is also stated that respondent No.2 has already received Rs.10,00,000/- by way of bank draft and has today received remaining amount of Rs.3,00,000/- by way of bank draft (photostat copy placed on record today in Court). Counsel for the parties also state that pursuant to compromise, petitioner No.5 and respondent No.2 shall file joint petition for divorce by mutual consent on 29.07.2011 in the court of Districtu Judge, Hoshiarpur. In appropriate cases, FIR can be quashed on the basis of compromise by exercising power under Section 482 Cr. P. C., even if the offences are not compoundable. It is particularly so in matrimonial cases. It was so held by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2007(2) Law Herald (Punjab & Haryana) 2225. In the instant case, the impugned FIR is result of matrimonial discord between petitioner No.5 and respondent No.2-complainant. The matrimonial dispute has also been settled. They have agreed to separate by way of mutual divorce. Requisite amount of Rs.13,00,000/- has been paid to respondent No.2-complainant. Accordingly, it is fit case in which FIR should be quashed In view of the aforesaid, instant petition is allowed and impugned FIR Annexure P-2 is quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. ( L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 25th July, 2011 'raj'