IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. 1. Criminal Miscellaneous No.20990-M of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : September 28, 2011 Savita and another ....... PETITIONER(S) versus State of Haryana and others .... RESPONDENT(S) 2. Criminal Miscellaneous No.26158-M of 2011 (O&M) Mahesh Chander ....... PETITIONER(S) versus State of Haryana and another .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioners in CRM 20990-M of 2011 and respondent No.2 in CRM 26158-M of 2011. Mr. BB Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM 26158-M of 2011 and respondents No.2 and 3 in CRM 20990-M of 2011. Mr. Anupam Sharma, AAG, Haryana. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This order shall dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 20990-M of 2011 (Savita and Mahinder Singh versus State of Haryana, Chander Parkash and Praveen Kumar) AND Criminal Miscellaneous No.26158-M of 2011 (Mahesh Chander versus State of Haryana and Savita Panchal wife of Mahesh Chander daughter of Mahinder Singh), as facts and circumstances of the Criminal Miscellaneous No.20990-M of 2011 (O&M) 2 two cases are integrated. 2 Criminal Miscellaneous No. 20990-M of 2011 has been filed under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for quashing of FIR No.92 dated 25.2.2010 under Sections 457 and 380, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Camp Palwal, District Palwal (Annexure P-1), which has been lodged at the instance of Chander Parkash. The petition also prays for quashing of Criminal Complaint No.31 of 2010, entitled 'Praveen Kumar v. Savita and others, (Annexure P-2), instituted for commission of offence under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palwal, and order of summoning dated 24.2.2010 (Annexure P-3). The indulgence has been sought on the basis of two compromise deeds dated 9.7.2011, Annexures P-7 and P-8. 3 Criminal Miscellaneous No.26158-M of 2011 has been filed under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for quashing of FIR No.182 dated 11.5.2010 under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506, 34, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Saran, District Faridabad (Annexure P-1), which has been lodged at the instance of Savita Panchal, on the basis of compromise/statement dated 23.3.2011 (Annexure P-3). 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and private respondent(s) in the two cases contend that on account of matrimonial disputes between Savita and Mahesh Chander, the cases came to be lodged. All the disputes have been settled by way of compromise deeds, as mentioned above. 5 Chander Parkash and Praveen Kumar, as identified by Criminal Miscellaneous No.20990-M of 2011 (O&M) 3 their counsel Shri B.B. Sharma, Advocate, are present in court and state that the disputes arose on account of matrimonial disputes between Savita and Mahesh Chander. The said disputes have been settled and the said two persons want to withdraw the allegations against Savita and Mahinder Singh made by way of FIR No.92 dated 25.2.2010 and Criminal Complaint No.31 of 2010. 6 Savita, as identified by her counsel Shri Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, is also present in court and states that a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed. Second motion in the said context is scheduled for 30.9.2011. Savita further states that all her rights arising out of the matrimony have been satisfied by the husband and his family members and, therefore, she does not want to proceed with the proceedings. 7 Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that because the disputes have been settled by way of compromise, the State would have no objection to the quashing of the aforesaid proceedings. 8 I have considered the issue. 9 The parties want to live in peace, all the disputes having been settled by way of compromise. A petition for divorce by mutual consent has already been filed. Continuance of multiple proceedings shall not allow the parties to settle in their lives. The rights of Savita have already been satisfied, as per her own stand. 10 In view of the above, both the petition are allowed. Criminal Miscellaneous No.20990-M of 2011 (O&M) 4 11 FIR No.92 dated 25.2.2010 under Sections 457 and 380, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Camp Palwal, District Palwal, Criminal Complaint No.31 of 2010, entitled 'Praveen Kumar v. Savita and others, under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palwal, order of summoning dated 24.2.2010 and FIR No.182 dated 11.5.2010 under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506, 34, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Saran, District Faridabad, and subsequent proceedings, are hereby quashed. 12 A photostat copy of the order be placed on the connected file. September 28, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?