In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-11970 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:24.5.2010 Ram Asre and others .....Petitioners v. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Deepak Kapur Batalvi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.C. Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent-State. Mr. S.S. Toor, Advocate for the complainants-respondents No.2 and 3 with respondents No.2 and 3 present in person. ..... S.S. Saron, J. The petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the FIR No.380 dated 29.5.2003 (Annexure-P.1) registered at Police Station, Sector 5, Panchkula for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 120-B IPC and also for quashing FIR No.79 dated 13.5.2009 (Annexure-P.2) registered at Police Station Sector 14, Panchkula for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B Indian Penal Code (`IPC' – for short) and Section 12A of the Passport Act in view of the compromise between the petitioners and respondents No.2 and 3 (complainants). On account of the matrimonial dispute between Pankaj Verma (petitioner No.4) and Ms. Meenakshi Goger (respondent No.2) both the FIRs (Annexures-P.1 and P.2) came to be registered. The matrimonial Cr. Misc. No.M-11970 of 2010 [2] dispute has now been resolved between the parties and a compromise dated 20.4.2010 (Annexure-P.3) has been reached at. In terms of the compromise that has been reached at the petitioners are to pay an amount of Rs.10 Lacs. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted bank draft No.513084 dated 20.4.2010 drawn on the Punjab and Sind Bank, SCO No.251, Sector 16, Panchkula (Haryana) in favour of the complainants for an amount of Rs.10 Lacs. A photostat copy of the same has been placed on record. The draft in original has been tendered to the complainant (respondent No.2) which has been received by her. The complainants (respondents No.2 and 3) who are present in Court and identified by their counsel have stated that they have no objection to the quashing of the FIR. Ms. Meenakshi (respondent No.2) has accepted that she has signed and deposed the affidavit (Annexure-P.6). Besides, respondent No.3 has accepted that he has signed and deposed the affidavit (Annexure-P.7). The matrimonial dispute having amicably been resolved, it would be just and expedient that the FIRs as mentioned above are quashed. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the State would have no serious objection to the quashing of the FIRs in case the matrimonial dispute has been amicably resolved 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. In B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another (supra) the Supreme Court has held that in matrimonial dispute inherent powers 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 the Cr. Misc. No.M-11970 of 2010 [3] present case, the parties have amicably settled their dispute. All the claims inter se stand settled. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances particularly the fact that the parties have amicably resolved their dispute, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings pending in the trial Court. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and case FIR No.380 dated 29.5.2003 (Annexure-P.1) registered at Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula, Chandigarh for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 120-B IPC and FIR No.79 dated 13.5.2009 (Annexure-P.2) registered at Police Station Sector 14, Panchkula for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and Section 12A of the Passport Act and all subsequent and consequential proceedings in pursuance thereof shall stand quashed. May 24, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*