IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-30010 of 2008 Date of decision : January 20. 2009. Balbir Singh and another ….. Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ….. Respondent Present: Mr. J.S. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ajay Singh Ghangas, DAG, Haryana. *** S.S. SARON, J. This petition has been jointly filed by the accused Balbir Singh (petitioner No.1) and the complainant Smt. Satwinder Kaur (petitioner No.2) seeking quashing of case FIR No.40 dated 3.4.2006 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Sadar, Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short) on the basis of compromise dated 8.11.2008 (Annexure P2). Petitioner No.2 Smt. Satwinder Kaur submitted an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri. The said application was received at the Police Station for registration of FIR against Balbir Singh (petitioner No.1) and for carrying out investigation on the same as per law. It was alleged by the complainant Satwinder Kaur (petitioner No.2) that she was married with Sanjay @ Sandeep Kumar son of petitioner No. 1 Balbir Singh on 11.5.2003 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Her parents had given sufficient dowry in marriage which was entrusted to petitioner No.1 as her ‘stree dhana’. Out of the marriage between her Crl. Misc. No. M-30010 of 2008 [2] and her husband Sanjay @ Sandeep Kumar, they had a daughter namely Vanshika on 21.2.2004. All expenses for delivery of the child were borne by her parents. It was alleged that petitioner No.1 who was the father-in-law of the complainant (petitioner No.2) had bad habits and was involved with another lady. Petitioner No.1 instigated Sanjay Kumar to raise a demand for car. Sanjay Kumar committed suicide on 23.5.2005. After death of Sanjay Kumar, petitioner No.1 Balbir Singh in collusion with the lady with whom he was involved harassed petitioner No.2 for demand for dowry and her jewellery was also kept by petitioner No.1. It is alleged that petitioner No.1 used to beat the complainant (petitioner No.2). Now the matter has been compromised in terms of the compromise dated 8.11.2008 (Annexure P2). Petitioner No.2 is present in Court and is identified by her counsel. It is stated by her that she has compromised the matter with petitioner No.1 of her own free will and desire. The compromise is without any kind of pressure or undue influence. It is submitted that the complainant (petitioner No.2) has passed M.A. The dispute in the case is a matrimonial one. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that in view the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, the State would have no serious objection to the quashing of the FIR if the matter has been amicably resolved between the father-in-law Balbir Singh (petitioner No.1) and his daughter- in-law Smt. Satwinder Kaur (petitioner No.2). It may be noticed that in terms of the compromise (Annexure P2), the matter has indeed been settled and the same is accepted by Smt. Satwinder Kaur (petitioner No.2) who is the complainant. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the prosecution which would now be an exercise in futility. In B.S. Joshi’s case (Supra) it was held by the Supreme Court that it is the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. Besides, if for the Crl. Misc. No. M-30010 of 2008 [3] purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, the provisions of Section 320 CrPC would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. Keeping in view the settlement that has been reached at, the FIR and all consequential proceedings in pursuance thereof are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and case FIR No.40 dated 3.4.2006 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Sadar Jagadhri Distt. Yamuna Nagar for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 IPC and all consequential proceedings in pursuance thereof shall stand quashed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE January 20, 2009 amit