Crl. Misc.No.M-151 of 2011(O&M) # 1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc.No.M-151 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision:-02.05.2011 Narender Kumar & Anr. ......Petitioners. Versus State of Haryana. ......Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. Akshay Kumar Goyal, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Vikas Malik, AAG Haryana. *** JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) Crl. Misc.No.279 of 2011 Allowed as prayed for. Crl. Misc.No.M 151 of 2011 Prayer under Section 438 Cr.PC is for grant of anticipatory bail on behalf of parents-in-law namely Narender Kumar and Veena Rani of complainant Pooja in case FIR No.402 dated 11.12.2010 under Sections 323, 406, 498-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code registered with P.S. Sector 5, Panchkula. Learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre in terms of the order dated 05.01.2011 Crl. Misc.No.M-151 of 2011(O&M) # 2# passed by this Court and as per the report submitted by the mediator dated 5.4.2011 both the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement of their dispute. Relevant terms and conditions of the settlement/compromise are extracted as under:- “1. That Raj Kumar son of Narinder Singh, husband of Pooja will file the mutual divorce petition under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the competent Court at Panchkula before 18.04.2010 and both the parties will record their statements before the Hon'ble Court. 2. That it is further settled that there is nothing due between both the parties and the dowry articles have already been recovered by the complainant-Smt. Pooja. Smt. Pooja further agreed that she will not file any maintenance case or will not demand any alimony as she wants to settle the matrimonial dispute once for all. 3. That it is further agreed between the parties that if Raj Kumar will file the quashing of the FIR No.402 dated 11.12.2010 under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, then she will make the statement before the Hon'ble High Court stating that she will have no objection if the abovesaid FIR is quashed by the Hon'ble Court. 4. That it has all been agreed between the parties that they will not interfere in the life of each other in future and will not level any allegation or file any complaint/case against each other or against each other's family members.” Learned Counsel for the State has apprised the IO ASI Surjit Singh of the compromise. In view of the compromise, learned Counsel for the parties are agreed that no further orders are required to be passed in this case and, therefore, they agree that this petition has become infructuous. In view of the agreed stand, dismissed as infructuous. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE May 02, 2011 Vinay