Crl. Misc.No. M-7898 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No. M-7898 of 2009 Date of Decision: 18 - 4 - 2009 Kamaljit Kaur .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: None for the petitioner. Mr.A.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Mega Lok Adalat was held on 20th and 21st of December, 2008. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar communicated to the District and Sessions Judge, Ropar that parties to case FIR No.50 dated 24.4.2006 registered at Police Station Kurali under Section 309 IPC have amicably resolved the dispute. In the present case complainant is Parshotam Singh. Satnam Singh is son of Parshotam Singh. The FIR was registered on the statement of complainant Parshotam Singh that on 24.4.2006 at about 10.00 A.M. in the area of Village Siswan accused Kamaljit Kaur attempted to commit suicide by pouring kerosene on herself. The communication of the Judicial Magistrate read as under:- “It is most respectfully submits that a criminal case Crl. Misc.No. M-7898 of 2009 [2] bearing Police Challan no.RT-174/19.05.06/15.12.2007, titled as State Vs. Kamaljit Kaur, FIR No.50/24.04.2006 under Section 309 of the IPC is pending before the court of undersigned. The same has been registered on the statement of complainant Parshotam Singh that on 24.04.2006 at about 10.00 AM in the area of village Siswan the accused attempted to commit suicide and poured Kerosene oil on herself. During the trial, complainant Parshotam Singh moved an application for compounding the offences on 19.12.2008 and accordingly the file was put up before the Mega Lok Adalat held on 20.12.2008 where complainant Parshotam Singh, eye witness Satnam Singh and accused Kamaljit Kaur had made statements that they have compromised the matter. Since, the offence under Section 309 of the IPC is non compoundable under the provisions of Section 320 of the Cr PC, therefore, the matter is brought before your honour for kind perusal and further orders please.” Mega Lok Adalat which consist of the Presiding Officer and Members recorded the statements of Satnam Singh, Parshotam Singh complainant and Kamaljit Kaur accused. It was noticed in the statements that parties to the marriage had obtained divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. It had been recommended by the Lok Adalat that in the present case, proceedings be quashed. The request of the Lok Adalat has been forwarded to this Court by Administrative Judge of Ropar Sessions Division. The Registry has treated the same on judicial side and had put up the same before this Court. Crl. Misc.No. M-7898 of 2009 [3] Since the statements have been recorded by the Lok Adalat and recommendation has been made by the Presiding Officer who is Judicial Magistrate Ist Class and Members and the same has been forwarded by the Administrative Judge, taking into account that matrimonial dispute has been amicably settled, continuation of criminal proceedings will serve no useful purpose. 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 in B.S.Joshi's case (supra) and Kulwinder Singh's case (supra), the impugned FIR along with all subsequent proceedings is quashed. Petition stands disposed off. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) April 18, 2009. JUDGE RC