Crl.Misc.No.M-1373 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Misc.No.M-1373 of 2010 Date of Decision: 20.1.2010 Arun Kumar and others .....Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and another ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Suman Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for respondent no.1. Mr. M.K.Singla, Advocate for respondent no.2. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.109 dated 24.6.2009, registered under Sections 406/498-A IPC, at Police Station Haibowal, Ludhiana, on the basis of a compromise. The genesis of the FIR is a matrimonial dispute between Mr. Supriya Kumar petitioner no.3 and his wife Ms. Rashim respondent no.2. However, with the intervention of counsel for the parties, friends and relatives, the petitioners and respondent no.2 have arrived at a settlement of their dispute by way of a written compromise reflected in their respective affidavits dated 14.1.2010 filed in Crl.Misc.No.M-29472 of 2009 titled as “Arun Kumar and others V. State of Punjab and others”. As per the terms and conditions of the compromise, Mr. Supriya Kumar and Ms. Rashim have agreed to part ways and bring their matrimonial ties to an end by Crl.Misc.No.M-1373 of 2010 2 praying before the court of competent jurisdiction for grant of a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Mr. Supriya Kumar has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.9.00 lacs to Ms. Rashim. They have also agreed that all cases pending inter parties would be quashed/withdrawn and Ms. Rashim would have no objection, if the FIR and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. Counsel for the petitioners and respondent no.2 state that in view of the compromise, a petition for grant of divorce by mutual consent has been filed before the District Judge, Ludhiana on 19.1.2009. The statements of Mr. Supriya Kumar and Ms. Rashim have been recorded and as of date Rs.6.00 lacs have been paid to Ms. Rashim. The balance amount of Rs.3.00 lacs would be paid on the date of the final motion in the divorce proceedings. It is prayed that in view of the compromise between the parties, the present petition be allowed and the FIR and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed. Mr. Supriya Kumar petitioner no.3 and Ms. Rashim respondent no.2 are present in person and acknowledge the correctness of the terms and conditions of their affidavits dated 14.1.2010 filed in Crl.Misc.No.M-29472 of 2009. Ms. Rashim states that she has no objection, if the FIR and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. Counsel for the State of Punjab submits that as parties have entered into a compromise, the State does not oppose the prayer for quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom. It is no doubt true that the offences complained of, are non- compoundable. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with a similar controversy, in B.S. Joshi and others V. State of Haryana and Crl.Misc.No.M-1373 of 2010 3 another, 2003(2) RCR (Criminal) 888, has held that in cases arising from matrimonial disputes, where parties have settled their dispute, by a bonafide settlement, Courts in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be justified in quashing proceedings emanating from matrimonial disputes. A perusal of the facts of the present case reveal that the petitioners and respondent no.2 have arrived at a bonafide settlement of their disputes without any fraud, coercion or undue influence and have decided to part ways. A compromise or a settlement, serves the immediate purpose of the parties as it enables them to proceed with their lives without illwill or rancour. In view of the compromise, the prosecution witnesses are not likely to support the prosecution and,therefore, to proceed with the trial would, in my opinion be an exercise in futility and wastage of valuable court time. It is a fit case, where this Court in the exercise of jurisdiction, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should put an end to these futile criminal proceedings. Consequently, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the petition is allowed and FIR No.109 dated 24.6.2009, registered under Sections 406/498-A IPC, at Police Station Haibowal, Ludhiana, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. The petitioners and respondent no.2 shall be bound by their affidavits dated 14.1.2010 and the terms and conditions set out therein. In case any party violates the terms and conditions of the compromise, liberty is granted to seek revival of this petition or to file a fresh petition. 20.1.2010 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE