Criminal Misc. No. M-32415 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Misc. No. M-32415 of 2008 Date of Decision: 30.1.2009 Tarun Arya and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Ms. Monisha Lamba, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1-State. Ms. Sharmila Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2-complainant. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Respondent No.2 Jyoti, aggrieved wife, is present in the Court. She has been identified by her counsel Ms. Sharmila Sharma, Advocate. She has also placed on record affidavit of respondent No.2 wherein it has been stated that she was married with Tarun son of Om Parkash on 13.4.2001 according to Hindu Rites & Ceremonies at Panipat. Respondent No.2 Joyti, in her affidavit, has further stated that she got a criminal case FIR No. 234 dated 18.5.2004 registered at Police Station City, Panipat, under Sections 406, 498-A IPC, against her husband and in-laws. The case is pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat. In the affidavit, it has been further submitted that Criminal Misc. No. M-32415 of 2008 2 the parties have arrived at compromise. Compromise has been annexed with this petition as Annexure P2. It has been further stated in the compromise that a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage on the ground of mutual consent has been preferred and the statements of the parties have been recorded before learned District Judge, Panipat. Petitioner Tarun Arya is husband, Laxmi Arya is mother-in-law, Om Parkash Arya is father-in-law, and Suraj Arya is brother of husband of Jyoti. Respondent No.2 Jyoti has further stated that she has received Rs.85,000/- in lieu of permanent maintenance, alimony and her stri dhan. It has been held in B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana 2003 (2) RCR (Criminal) 888 that compromise not only promotes peace in the society but also saves parties from litigation. The view has been further reiterated by a Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2007(3) Recent Criminal Reports 1052. In view of the law laid down in B.S.Joshi's case (supra) and Kulwinder Singh's case (supra), keeping in view the compromise arrived at between the parties, present petition is accepted and impugned FIR along with all consequential proceedings is quashed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge January 30, 2009 “DK”