Crl.Misc.No.M-38231 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-38231 of 2010 Date of decision:02.06.2011 Mahesh Damir and others ..... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr.S.S.Salar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Munish Kumar, AAG, Punjab for respondent no.1. Mr.G.S.Gandhi, Advocate for respondent no.2. RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.148, dated 07.05.2011, under Sections 406/498-A IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Kotwali Patiala, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties. The facts leading to the registration of the present FIR No.148 dated 07.05.2011, under Sections 406/498-A IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Kotwali Patiala, are that applicant/respondent no.2 was married to Mahesh Damir on 13.07.2003. All the accused namely Mahesh Damir, Sachin Damir and Saloni were given dowry. After marriage, accused started maltreating the applicant and started demanding money in the shape of Crl.Misc.No.M-38231 of 2010 -2- items/articles. The accused persons again demanded Rs.10000/- for expending their business but the applicant's father showed his inability. On 19.06.2004, the applicant gave birth to a male child and all accused were informed but they did not come to Patiala to see the child. Applicant's father asked Parmod Arora maternal uncle of the applicant and Renu Arora maternal aunt of the applicant, who were living at Rishikesh to make the accused agree to take the applicant to her matrimonial home but to no result. Accused said unless they are given Rs.1,00,000/-, they will not allow the applicant to entry to her matrimonial home. All the istri dhan of the applicant is lying with the accused and they have not returned the same. In the above background the FIR was registered against the accused. During the pendency of the trial, the parties have arrived at a compromise (Annexure P-2) before the Mediation Centre, on 21.09.2010. It has been agreed between the parties that child Kunal `will be retained by Poonam and Mahesh Damir will not lay his claim over the child. It has also been agreed that the parties will return back all the gold articles in the possession of each other. Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.Two Lacs only) is agreed as permanent alimony towards full and final settlement to be paid to Poona and return of gold articles. After return of gold articles and payment, it has been agreed that FIR will be quashed. On 13.10.2010 all the conditions in the compromise have since been completed. The parties have exchanged the gold articles as mentioned in the compromise and Rs.2,00,000/- through bank draft Crl.Misc.No.M-38231 of 2010 -3- bearing No.920719, payable at Punjab National Bank, Patiala in the name of Poonam Chawla has been given. Mr.Mahesh Damir, petitioner No.1, states that a loan had been taken by him in which Poonam was the co-applicant. Now, this loan has been cleared and no objection certificate has been obtained from the Bank. A joint divorce petition is to be filed. Counsel for the respondent no.2 states that all the conditions have been complied with and nothing is due from the petitioner. After going through the compromise, this Court is of the opinion that the compromise has been effected in a valid and genuine manner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 910 has examined a case where quashing was sought of an FIR under Section 498-A IPC being non-compoundable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :- “Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the parties have settled their differences. It was submitted on behalf of the complainant Smt. Sadhna Madnawat that she is not interested in prosecuting the appellants. It may be pertinent to mention that the parties hail from cultured and educated families. It was also submitted that the appellant's parents are suffering from multiple ailments because of advanced age. The appellant's father is a retired Professor and Dean, Veterinary College, Mathura and he had undergone transplant of his kidney and the appellant's mother is suffering from multiple ailments and is virtually bed-ridden.” Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Crl.Misc.No.M-38231 of 2010 -4- Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul (supra), FIR No.148, dated 07.05.2011, under Sections 406/498-A IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Kotwali Patiala, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. However, parties can make appropriate application for listing the joint divorce petition at an earlier date since the matter has been resolved amicably. 02.06.2011 [ RITU BAHRI ] shamsher JUDGE