In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-8383 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:17.5.2010 Suraj Kumar and others .....Petitioners v. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Shivoy Dhir, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. Raj Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. ..... S.S. Saron, J. The petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.' - for short) seeking quashing of the FIR No.158 dated 15.12.2006 (Annexure-P.1) registered at Police Station Garhshankar for the offences under Sections 406, 498-A and 120-B IPC. The FIR has been registered on account of matrimonial dispute between Vijayta Rana-complainant (respondent no.2) and Suraj Kumar (petitioner No.1). In the proceedings of the Lok Adalat recorded on 7.11.2009 (Annexure-P.2) it has been stated by Suraj Kumar (petitioner No.1) and Vijayta Rana (respondent No.2) that they have compromised the matter amongst themselves and are residing together for the last 20 days. Their parents are not interfering in their life and neither would they interfere in future. Whatever respect is to be paid to the elders that would be duly Cr. Misc. No.M-8383 of 2010 [2] given. They are living together at Nawanshahr. Whatever suits and complaints have been filed they will finish the same and they will make statements in that regard in accordance with law. Vijayta Rana (respondent No.2) is present in Court and is identified by her counsel Shri Raj Sharma, Advocate, who has put in appearance for her and has filed his Vakalatnama which is taken on record. He identified Vijayta Rana (respondent No.2). It is stated by Vijayta Rana that she has compromised the matter with her husband Suraj Kumar and she is living with him. It is stated that she has no objection if the FIR (Annexure-P.1) is quashed. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter and keeping in view the fact that the husband (petitioner No.1) and wife (respondent No.2) are living together and had amicably resolved their matrimonial dispute, the continuation of the proceedings in pursuance of the FIR dated 15.12.2006 (Annexure-P.1) would be an exercise in futility. It is stated by the learned counsel for the State that the charges in the case have been framed, however, no PW has been examined. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the State that in case matrimonial dispute has been amicably resolved, the State would have no serious objection to the quashing of the FIR in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2003 (2) RCR (Cr.) 888 wherein it has been held that in matrimonial dispute inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice. In fact it has been emphasized that the parties to matrimonial dispute should be encouraged to compromise the matter. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the case FIR Cr. Misc. No.M-8383 of 2010 [3] No.158 dated 15.12.2006 registered at Police Station Garhshankar for the offences under Sections 406, 498-A and 120-B IPC and all subsequent and consequential proceedings arising therefrom shall stand quashed. May 17, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*