IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No. 30341-M of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : JANUARY 12, 2010 PUSHPA RANI @ RUBBY ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. AS Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for quashing of FIR No.86 dated 10.5.2006 under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Dharamkot, District Moga (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings, on the basis of compromise dated 9.9.2008 (Annexure P-2). It transpires that respondent No.2-complainant is brother-in- law (younger brother of the husband) of the petitioner. On account of some dispute, the FIR came to be lodged. The petitioner went abroad and stayed there and was declared Proclaimed Offender. Be that as it may, all the disputes have been settled by way of compromise. The civil rights of respondent No.2-complainant have been Criminal Misc. No. 30341-M of 2008 2 finally settled. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant endorses the factum of compromise (Annexure P-2) and states that respondent No.2-complainant would not come to the court to give evidence in support of the prosecution case. I have considered the issue. The petitioner and respondent No.2-complainant are closely related. It is the case of respondent No.2-complainant that he would not come to the court to give evidence and would not pursue the matter any further in view of amicable settlement of all the disputes. In my considered view, continuance of proceedings would not serve any legal purpose. The time of the prosecution as also the court would be wasted by continuance of the proceedings as the proceedings would not reach any logical end in the absence of evidence by the complainant, who is the affected person. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. FIR No.86 dated 10.5.2006 under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Dharamkot, District Moga (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed. January 12, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?