IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-35100 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 26.11.2011 Ravi Gupta and Others ..Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and Others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate for Mr. MPS Chandel, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Aman Bahri, Advocate for respondent No. 2. ***** ALOK SINGH, J.(ORAL) Ms. Shalini Garg, respondent No. 2-author of the FIR against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 406, 498-A, 323, 506 IPC registered at Police Station Sector 5, District Panchkula, is present in person. She has been duly identified by Mr. Aman Bahri, Advocate appearing for the respondents. On being asked Ms. Shalini Garg, respondent No. 2, who is present in person, states that matter has been amicably settled and now petition seeking dissolution of marriage has already been filed under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act. She has further stated that she has already received Rs. 25,00,000/- and today she has received Rs. 4,00,000/- in the shape of demand draft and she has been promised to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- before the Court hearing the petition for the dissolution of CRM No. M-35100 of 2011(O&M) -2- the marriage. She has further stated that now parties have agreed to live separately after seeking mutual divorce, therefore, she does not want to pursue criminal proceedings against the petitioners. Mr. Abhishek Gupta-petitioner No. 3, is also present in person, duly identified by Mr. Aman Pal states that now he and respondent No. 2 have decided to live separately and petition seeking divorce by mutual consent has already been filed before the Competent Court under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. He further contends that he will pay remaining amount of Rs. 1 lac out of Rs. 30 lacs, which was agreed between the parties before the Court hearing the petition for divorce. Since matter has been settled between the parties and present petition is arising out of the matrimonial dispute, therefore, in my opinion no useful purpose would be served keeping the criminal proceedings on against the petitioners. Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by this Court to secure ends of justice. Therefore, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 285, dated 30.08.2010, registered at Police Station Sector 5, District Panchkula, under Sections 406, 498-A, 323, 506 IPC is ordered to be quashed. (ALOK SINGH) November 26, 2011 JUDGE Poonam (II)