Crl. Misc. No. M –4284 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Misc. No. M –4284 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 6.9.2010. Harbans Lal & Ors. ... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & Ors. ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Arun Bakshi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. R.K.Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) Heard. The petitioners – Harbans Lal, Joginder Pal, Smt. Shama and Smt. Santosh have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing FIR No. 47 dated 14.4.2005 registered under Sections 406, 498-A and 34 IPC in Police Station Div. No.1, Jalandhar and all the consequent/resultant proceedings, in view of the written compromise dated 8.2.2010 (Annexure P-2) and affidavits (Ex- P/4 and P/5). According to the petitioners marriage of Harbans Lal had taken place with Shashi Bala – respondent No.3 on 11.11.1999 and litigation started between them in the year 2005. The above said FIR was got registered against them by Dr. Vinay Bhagat- respondent No.2 the brother of other respondent. A compromise was entered into between them and accordingly a joint petition was filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Both the respondents have sworn affidavits to the Crl. Misc. No. M –4284 of 2010 (O&M) -2- effect that the matter has been compromised and that they do not want to prosecute them for the offences in respect of which the FIR was got registered. The factum of the compromise was admitted by respondents No. 2 and 3. Report of the trial Court was called if the parties have voluntarily entered into such a compromise in respect of the offences mentioned in the FIR and the report was to be made after recording the statements of the parties. After doing the needful, the Presiding Officer has submitted his report on the basis of the statements of the parties recorded by him. He has come to the conclusion that the parties have voluntarily entered into a compromise in respect of the offences mentio ned in the FIR. Though the offence under Section 498-A IPC is not compoundable, yet the parties could have entered into compromise even in respect of that offence, which arises out of the matrimonial dispute, and the FIR can be quashed on the basis of such a compromise. In view of the compromise so entered into between the parties, the above said FIR and the subsequent proceedings are ordered to be quashed. The petition is disposed of accordingly. September 6, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge