Crl. Misc.No.M-11480 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-11480 of 2011 Date of Decision: 23 - 5 - 2011 Sanjeev Garg and another .....Petitioners v. State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Kushaldeep S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Sandeep S. Mann, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Panwar, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Monika – respondent No.2 had lodged a case FIR No.7 dated 18.1.2010 registered at Police Station Kalka, District Panchkula under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506 IPC against her husband Sanjeev Garg and mother-in-law Sarita Garg, the petitioners herein. They seeks quashing of the same, on the basis of a compromise dated 25.11.2010 arrived at between the parties, and a copy whereof has been annexed with the present petition as Annexure P2. Today, Monika – respondent No.2 is present in Court. She has been identified by her counsel Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Panwar, Advocate. Her Crl. Misc.No.M-11480 of 2011 [2] statement has been recorded separately. Same be read as a part of this order. Monika has stated before this Court that the matrimonial dispute has been amicably resolved. She and petitioner No.1 Sanjeev Garg have decided to part gracefully. Pursuant to the agreement, a sum of Rs.4 lacs has already been paid to her. It is stated that both husband and wife have filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The said petition is fixed for recording statements of the parties on 30.5.2011 before the District Judge, Panchkula. Counsel for the petitioners and complainant-respondent No.2 have jointly prayed that in view of the compromise arrived at between them, the present petition be quashed, as both husband and wife have decided to part with gracefully. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana, 2003(2) RCR (Criminal) 888 and a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 that if a matrimonial dispute has been resolved, no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the criminal proceedings. Taking into consideration the ratio of law laid down in B.S.Joshi's case (supra) and Kulwinder Singh's case (supra), the impugned FIR along with all subsequent proceedings is quashed. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) May 23, 2011. JUDGE RC