IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.27773 -M of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : NOVEMBER 7, 2011 DAMAN PREET CHAWLA ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. HS Deol, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. KK Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondentNo.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) CRM 55283 of 2011 The application prays for permission to the petitioner to go abroad. It has been contended that the petitioner is, ordinarily, a resident of Canada and is earning his livelihood there. On account of pendency of this case, the petitioner is unable to go abroad. Ms.Maneet Kaur, respondent No.2, as identified by Shri K.K. Chaudhary, Advocate, is present in Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.2 pray that the main case be taken up for hearing today itself, in view of its peculiar nature and the above mentioned Criminal Misc. No.27773 -M of 2011 (O&M) 2 circumstance that the petitioner shall lose his job, in case he is not allowed to go abroad. On joint request of learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.2, the main case is taken up for hearing today itself. The application stands disposed of. CRM 27773-M of 2011 This petition has been filed under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for quashing of FIR No.108 dated 17.5.2007 under Sections 406, 498-A, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Model Town, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings, on the basis of compromise dated 16.07.2011 (Annexure P-4). Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the FIR came to be lodged on account of matrimonial discord between the petitioner and respondent No.2. The disputes have been settled. All the rights of respondent No.2 arising out of matrimony have been settled and respondent No.2 has been adequately compensated to her entire satisfaction. So much so, the petitioner and respondent No.2 are, now, divorced by way of a decree of divorce by mutual consent. All the rights having been settled, respondent No.2 does not, now, want to prosecute the accused in the FIR. Respondent No.2 has made a categoric statement that all her rights arising out of the matrimony have been satisfied by way of payment of money and she does not want to pursue the FIR case. Criminal Misc. No.27773 -M of 2011 (O&M) 3 Affidavit of respondent No.2, sworn on 7.11.2011, has been filed in court today, which is taken on record. The affidavit also endorses the factum of compromise. 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 FIR. The petitioner and respondent No.2 want to live in peace and harmony. Pendency of proceedings shall, surely, adversely affect the rights of the parties. In view of the above noted facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed. FIR No.108 dated 17.5.2007 under Sections 406, 498- A, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Model Town, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings, are hereby quashed. NOVEMBER 7, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?