Criminal Misc. No. 35778-M OF 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. 35778-M OF 2010(O&M) Date of decision:21st January, 2011 Manish Arora and others .......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Ms. Poonam Tara, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S.Virk, DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr. Upender Parashar, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Ritu Bahri, J.(Oral) Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is for quashing of FIR No.177, dated 1.05.2009, registered under Sections 406, 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar and all proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of a compromise. Criminal Misc. No. 35778-M OF 2010(O&M) 2 Counsel for the petitioners and counsel for respondent no. 2, submit that the matrimonial dispute between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 has been settled as they have agreed to part ways. As per the compromise(Annexure P-2) it has been agreed between the parties that the total amount of Rs. 50,000/- to respondent No. 2. out of which Rs. 25,000/- shall be paid at the time of recording the initial statements of both the parties and the remaining amount of Rs. 25,000/- as full and final payment at the time of recording of final statements and at the time of passing of final decee for divorce. As far as custody of minor child is concerned he will remain with the father. It is prayed that as parties have settled their differences and have executed a compromise, dated 30.09.2010(AnnexureP-‘2’), therefore, the FIR and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed. Counsel for the State of Haryana submits that as parties have entered into a compromise, the State does not oppose the prayer for quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the compromise dated 30.09.2010, Annexure-P-'2', and am of the considered opinion that the petitioners and respondent no. 2 have resolved their differences by a bonafide compromise, free from any fraud, coercion or undue influence. The Complainant-Ms. Poonam who is present in Court has been duly identified by her counsel. She Criminal Misc. No. 35778-M OF 2010(O&M) 3 acknowledges the correctness of the compromise, referred to hereinabove and states that she has no objection if the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. Consequently, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this petition is allowed and the FIR No. 177, dated 1.05.2009, registered under Sections 406, 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar, and all consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. [RITU BAHRI] JUDGE 21st January, 2011 Shivani Kaushik