Crl. Misc. No.M-21585 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: September 16, 2010. (1) Crl. Misc. No.M-21585 of 2010 . Prem Singh and another. .. petitioners * * * (2) Crl. Misc. No.M-27278 of 2010. Neeraj Arya. .. petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and another. . Respondents *** CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Ashit Malik, Advocate, for the petitioners in both the petitions. Mr.Amit Rana, DAG., Haryana. Mr.Bhag Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2. *** . . . 1 Crl. Misc. No.M-21585 of 2010 M.M.S. BEDI, J. This order will disposed of the above noted two petitions, one filed by Prem Singh and another and the another by Neeraj Arya, seeking quashing of FIR No.56 dated 27.02.2010, under Sections 406 & 498-A/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Baldev Nagar, District Ambala, on the basis of a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., filed by respondent No.2-complainant. Reply filed by respondent No.2 is taken on recod. As the matrimonial dispute between complainant- respondent No.2 and Neeraj Arya has been amicably settled and parties have agreed to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent on return of the dowry articles and one time lump sum compensation/maintenance as per the terms and conditions of compromise Annexure P-2, the FIR can be permitted to be quashed subject to the compliance of the terms of conditions of compromise. Complainant-respondent No.2 is present in the Court. She has stated that she has no objection in case the criminal proceedings launched on the basis of complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., is permitted to be compounded. She does not want to pursue her remedy against the petitioner. In view of the judgment in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.), Page-1052, and B.S.Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & another, 2003 (2) RCR (Crl.), Page-888, I do not find any reason to decline the prayer of the petitioners for quashing of the FIR especially when the . . . 2 Crl. Misc. No.M-21585 of 2010 complainant has got no objection to the same. The petition is allowed. The above said FIR and all the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise. It is made clear that in case of non- compliance of terms and conditions of the compromise at any subsequent stage, it will be open to the complainant to approach this Court for recalling the order or registration of fresh FIR. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE September 16, 2010. rka . . . 3