IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No. M-34511 of 2008 Date of decision:21st March, 2009 Gurdial Singh and another ......Petitioners Versus Usha Rani and another .....Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.S.Saini, Advocate for the respondent no. 1. Mr. C.S.Brar, DAG Punjab for the respondent no. 2. Rajive Bhalla, J(Oral) Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing of Complaint No. 108/1/2000, dated 1.09.2000, titled as “Usha Rani vs. Gurdial Singh and Others”, under Sections 406, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nawanshahr, on the basis of a compromise(Annexure-P’2’). Counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the respondent no. 1 submit that parties have resolved their differences by agreeing to part ways. As a consequence, they have been granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Surjit Singh, father of the Petitioner no. 1, and Usha Rani, respondent no. 1, the Complainant, are present in Court and have been identified by their counsel. Counsel for the petitioner has handed over a Demand Draft amounting to Rs. 3,50,000/- to the complainant. Ms. Usha Rani, the complainant states that she has no objection, if the present Complaint and subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the compromise, dated 11.12.2008(Annexure P-'2'), and am of the considered opinion that the petitioners and respondent no. 1 have resolved their differences by a bona fide compromise, free from any fraud, coercion or undue influence. In view of the compromise, the prosecution witnesses are not likely to support the prosecution and to continue with the trial Crl.Misc. No. M-34511 of 2008 [2] would be a wastage of public money and valuable Court time. It is a fit case, where this Court in the exercise of jurisdiction, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., should put an end to these futile criminal proceedings. 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 another, 2003(2) RCR(Criminal) 888, has held that in cases arising from a matrimonial disputes, where parties have settled their dispute, by a bonafide settlement, the High Court in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. would be justified in quashing proceedings emanating from matrimonial disputes. Consequently, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the present case, the present petition is allowed and the Complaint No. 108/1/2000, dated 1.09.2000, titled as “Usha Rani vs. Gurdial Singh and Others”, under Sections 406, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. [RAJIVE BHALLA] JDUGE 21st March, 2009 SKaushik