Criminal Misc. No. M-5433 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-5433 of 2011 Date of decision:- 27.5.2011 Dr. Shallender Kaushal ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Munish Kumar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate for respondent No.2. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No.620 dated 07.12.2006 under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station S.A.S. Nagar, Phase-I, Mohali on the basis of compromise. The FIR was registered on the statement of the complainant. Marriage between respondent No.2-complainant and petitioner was solemnized on 28.11.2003. After marriage the complainant was tortured physically and mentally on account of bringing less dowry. After filing a complaint by the complainant to the SSP Mohali against the petitioner and his family members, the matter was compromised on 25.9.2004. After birth of a child, the complainant was again tortured and given beatings many times. In this Criminal Misc. No. M-5433 of 2011 -2- background the FIR was registered. Counsel for respondent No.2 puts in appearance and tendered the reply of respondent No.2 by way of affidavit dated 27.5.2011. Respondent No.2- Dr. Lalita Kaushal is present in the Court and identified by his counsel. As per affidavit filed by her, the matter has been compromised between the parties and she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. Now the petitioner and respondent No.2 are residing in their matrimonial home happily. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 910 has examined a case where quashing was sought of an FIR under Section 498-A IPC being non-compoundable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :- “Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the parties have settled their differences. It was submitted on behalf of the complainant Smt. Sadhna Madnawat that she is not interested in prosecuting the appellants. It may be pertinent to mention that the parties hail from cultured and educated families. It was also submitted that the appellant's parents are suffering from multiple ailments because of advanced age. The appellant's father is a retired Professor and Dean, Veterinary College, Mathura and he had undergone transplant of his kidney and the appellant's mother is suffering from multiple ailments and is virtually bed-ridden.” Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another (supra), FIR No.620 dated 07.12.2006 under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station S.A.S. Nagar, Phase-I, Mohali, is Criminal Misc. No. M-5433 of 2011 -3- quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. May 27, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE