IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-4618 of 2009 Date of decision : 1.12.2009 Desh Bandhu and Others …. Petitioners Versus State of U.T. and another …. Respondents Present: Mr. S.D. Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Preet Pal, Advocate for U.T. Chandigarh. None for the complainant. **** S.S. SARON, J. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.192 dated 18.10.2008 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Sector 19, Chandigarh for the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A Indian Penal Code on the basis of compromise dated 27.1.2009 (Annexure P2). The marriage between Abhilash Gupta (petitioner No.3) and Reena Gupta (respondent No.2/complainant) was solemnized on 26.11.2005 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs at Chandigarh. The couple lived together as husband and wife at Chandigarh and Faridabad till 18.5.2006. It is submitted that due to temperamental differences, they could not pull along together and according to the petitioners, the complainant/respondent No.2 left her matrimonial home on 19.5.2006. On account of the matrimonial Crl. Misc. No. M-4618 of 2009 [2] differences that arose between the parties, Reena Gupta (respondent No.2) lodged FIR dated 18.10.2008 (Annexure P1) alleging that she was intimidated for dowry articles by her husband Abhilash Gupta (petitioner No.3) as also his parents Desh Bandhu Gupta (petitioner No.1) and Mrs. Urmila Gupta (petitioner No.2) as also Ms. Ruchi daughter of Desh Bandhu Gupta (petitioner No.1). The matrimonial dispute between the parties has now been resolved and a compromise dated 27.1.2009 (Annexure P2) has been recorded between the parties. Besides, a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of divorce by mutual consent has also been filed. The statements of Reena Gupta (respondent No.2/complainant) and Desh Bandhu Gupta (petitioner No.1) acting as an attorney of Abhilash Gupta (petitioner No.3) were recorded on 17.8.2009; a copy of which is on record. In terms of the said statements, Reena Gupta (respondent No.2) has received bank draft dated 11.8.2009 for a sum of Rs.8.5 lacs drawn on the Punjab National Bank. It is stated that she has received the entire amount of 17 lacs subject to encashment of the draft. In terms of the compromise (Annexure P2), it was agreed between the parties that a sum of Rs.17 lacs shall be paid by Abhilash Gupta (petitioner No.3) to Reena Gupta (respondent No.2/complainant) in lieu of past, present and future maintenance, alimony and all claims of Reena Gupta (respondent No.2) with respect to dowry and other articles have been settled and she has agreed to withdraw all the cases (civil and criminal) filed against Abhilash Gupta (petitioner No.3). Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the draft of Rs.17 lacs must have been encashed as no one has put in Crl. Misc. No. M-4618 of 2009 [3] appearance on behalf of respondent No.2. It is also submitted that the case before the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh is now fixed for orders and statements have been made by the parties for dissolving the marriage amongst them by mutual consent. In the statement recorded on 17.8.2009, it is stated that a decree of mutual divorce may be passed as there are no chances of reconciliation. In B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 it has held by the Supreme Court that for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, if quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 CrPC would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. Besides, the High Court in exercise of its inherent power can quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in the case of a matrimonial dispute and Section 320 CrPC does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. In respect of matrimonial cases, it was held that it is the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. The matrimonial dispute between the parties having been amicably settled in terms of the compromise (Annexure P2), no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal prosecution. The fact that neither respondent No.2 nor her counsel has put in appearance would show that there is no opposition to the prayer seeking quashing of the FIR (Annexure P1). Even otherwise, continuation of the proceedings in pursuance of the impugned FIR would be an exercise in futility when the end result is known and chances of conviction are remote. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and FIR No.192 dated 18.10.2008 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Section 19, Chandigarh for the offences under Sections 406 Crl. Misc. No. M-4618 of 2009 [4] and 498-A Indian Penal Code and all subsequent and consequential proceedings arising therefrom shall stand quashed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE December 1, 2009 amit