CRM-M 26423 of 2009 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M 26423 of 2009 Date of Decision: 14.10.2009 Raj Bala and another ..Petitioners. Vs. State of Haryana and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.Chander Shekhar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Kartar Singh, AAG Haryana. Mr.Parveen Chauhan, Advocate for the complainant. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short `Cr.P.C') for quashing of FIR No.229 dated 3.8.2009 under Sections 420/406/467/468/471/120-B IPC registered at Police Station Ambala and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom. Briefly stated, the aforesaid FIR was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2 (Rekha) under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. against the present petitioners Raj Bala and Shakuntla. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that due to the intervention of the family members and respectables, a written compromise dated 2.9.2009 was effected between the complainant and Shakuntla (petitioner No.2) and dated 5.9.2009 between complainant and Raj Bala (petitioner No.1) which are attached with the petition as Annexures P-2 and CRM-M 26423 of 2009 -2- P-3 respectively. Pursuant to the notice of motion, Sh.Parveen Chauhan, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant. Both the petitioners as well as the complainant are present in Court in person. Petitioners No.1 and 2 have been identified by Sh.Chander Shekhar, Advocate whereas the complainant has been identified by Sh.Parveen Chauhan, Advocate. I have asked both the petitioners and the complainant in Court about the compromise Annexures P-2 and P-3 to which they have stated that compromise has been effected between them and there is no change in it. Pursuant to the notice of motion, reply has also been filed by way of affidavit by respondent No.1. It is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners that petitioners No.1 and 2 are real sisters-in-law (Nanad) of complainant/respondent No.2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that the petitioners and respondent No.2 are closely related and have entered into compromise which are on record as Annexures P-2 and P- 3, I find it to be a fit case for quashing of FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the larger Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.229 dated 3.8.2009 CRM-M 26423 of 2009 -3- under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 14.10.2009 Judge Meenu