IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 15234 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: November 14, 2011 Kanwaldeep Kaur & another .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Pardeep Punia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab, for the State. Mr. A.S. Manaise, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of Crl Misc. Nos.M-15234 and 34844 of 2010. These two petitions have been filed for quashing of FIR No.211, dated 1.12.2009 registered under Sections 498-A/ 494/420/465/471/120-B IPC at Police Station Sadar, Gurdaspur at the behest of respondent No.2-Ra0jinder Kaur. The pleas are that the case and all material issues have been settled and the parties have decided to live separately. Second petition (Crl Misc. No.M-34844 of 2011) is filed on behalf of mother- in-law and brother-in-law and husband. Though mother-in-law is Crl. Misc. No. M- 15234 of 2010 -2- present in this country and has filed this petition, but the petition on behalf of the husband and brother-in-law is filed through attorney. Counsel for respondent No.2-Rajinder Kaur, however, points out that the parties after reaching the compromise had filed a divorce petition on the ground of mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. For making statement in the said case, the husband had come from United States of America to this country and had accordingly, recorded his statement in divorce case. The divorce was accordingly, granted and the copy thereof has been annexed with Crl. Misc. No.M-34844 of 2010 as Annexure P-6. It is noticed that the petitioners had agreed to pay a total sum of `15,25,000/- as per the compromise. A sum of `10 lacs was already deposited to be kept in the safe custody of Registrar (Judicial). Thereafter, petitioner No.1 i.e. mother-in-law was permitted to visit United States of America. Petitioner No.1 now has returned. In the meantime, the validity date of the drafts, which were deposited with the Registrar (Judicial) has expired. Counsel for the petitioners, accordingly, sought time to revalidate the drafts and the directions were, accordingly, issued to the Registrar of this Court for the purpose of revalidation. Two revalidated drafts Nos.606792 and 850212, each amounting to ` 5 lacs , are handed over in the Court today. Another draft of `5,25,000/- is also handed over in the Court by the counsel for the petitioners. All the three drafts are handed over to the counsel for respondent No.2, who in turn hand these over to the complainant, who is present in person before the Court. The complainant has confirmed that she has voluntarily reached this Crl. Misc. No. M- 15234 of 2010 -3- compromise with the petitioners and would have no objection in case the FIR against the petitioners in both the petitions is quashed. State counsel has pointed out that two o0f the petitioners in Crl. Misc. No.M-34844 of 2010 have approached this Court through attorney. Declining to quash the proceedings, in the background that the husband had appeared to make a statement in the divorce proceedings on the basis of which divorce was granted, may lead to rather prejudicial consequences for the complainant. She has already been granted divorce, whereas the amount as agreed is yet to reach her. Accordingly, this objection that the petitioners have filed this petition through attorney should not mean much in the facts of the present case. Since the parties have arrived at the compromise, which has been acted upon and both the sides have stood by the compromise, no useful purpose would be served in allowing these criminal proceedings to continue. Such like disputes are best resolved by way of compromise. Chance has to be given to both the parties to start a fresh in life. Reference can be made to the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 in support of quashing in such like cases. Both the petitions are, accordingly, allowed. FIR No.211, dated 1.12.2009 registered under Sections 498-A/ 494/ 420/ 465/ 471/120-B IPC, Police Station Sadar, Gurdaspur, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. November 14, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE