Criminal Misc. No. 16230-M of 2006 1 Criminal Misc. No. 17207-M of 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 12.11.2010 Criminal Misc. No. 16230-M of 2006 Manita ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab and another ....Respondents Criminal Misc. No. 17207-M of 2006 Mohinderpal singh and another ....Petitioners V/s State of Punjab and another ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate and Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG Punjab. Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate for respondent No. 2. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) Both the aforesaid petitions having been filed for quashing of a complaint under Section 406, 498-A read with Section 34 IPC (Annexure P- 4) and the summoning order dated 08.02.2006 (Annexure P-15) issued pursuant thereto by JMIC, Jalandhar were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Criminal Misc. No. 16230-M of 2006 2 Criminal Misc. No. 17207-M of 2006 Learned counsel for the parties submit that the matter was referred to Permanent Lok Adalat of this court. They submit that statements of the parties were recorded before the Permanent Lok Adalat and matter was amicably resolved. The order passed by the said Forum reads thus:- “Three bank drafts in the name of Amanpreet Kaur in the sums of Rs. 1,25,000/-, Rs. 2,25,000/- and Rs. 3,50,000/- are, photocopies of which are placed on record, being handed over to Sh. G.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate for Ms. Amanpreet Kaur in terms of statement of Ms. Amanpreet Kaur recorded on 23.07.2010. As per statement of Ms. Amanpreet Kaur recorded as above, she will withdraw criminal litigation filed against present petitioners and their daughter in criminal complaint No. 147/1/2005 which is pending in the Court of Ms. Paramjit Kaur, JMIC, Jalandhar and will abide by the statements recorded above regarding the custody of the child. The case is returned to the Hon’ble High Court for appropriate orders ” In view of above, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that continuation of proceedings before the Magistrate will be an exercise in futility. He contends that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the complaint as well as all consequential proceedings thereto deserve to be quashed. Reliance is placed on judgment of this court reported as Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR(Crl.), 1052. This prayer is not opposed by learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The compromise is in the interest of parties and after the matter has been resolved, no useful purpose would be served by allowing the proceedings before the trial court to continue. Parties have settled the entire Criminal Misc. No. 16230-M of 2006 3 Criminal Misc. No. 17207-M of 2006 dispute by way of alternative dispute resolution. In view of law laid down by this court in Kulwinder Singh case (supra), the complaint, summoning order and all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. Both the petitions are allowed in these terms. November 12, 2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE