IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 30633 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: November 30, 2011 Sh. Rajiv Malhotra & others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Jagpal Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Being aggrieved against the petitioners, respondent No.2 had filed FIR No.181, dated 17.04.2006, registered under Sections 323/406/498-A/506 IPC, at Police Station Central Faridabad. Petitioner No.1 had married respondent No.2 on 10.12.1999 at Ambala Cantt. After marriage, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 started residing at Faridabad. There is a mail child born out of this wedlock, which is presently living with petitioner no.1. The petitioners would aver that the behaviour of respondent No.2 was not normal being arrogant and disrespectful. This led to some matrimonial discord between the couple. The husband-petitioner Crl. Misc. No. M- 30633 of 2011 -2- No.1 filed a petition under Section 13(i) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act') in the year 2004. He also filed a petition for seeking custody of the minor child. When the matter reached this Court, efforts were made to save this marriage. Petitioner No.1 had then withdrawn the petition for divorce and respondent No.2 withdrew her application for retaining the custody of her child. Another effort was made by the couple to reconstruct their marriage, but they have not succeeded. Ultimately, this led to registration of the present FIR. It is urged that FIR is a counter blast to the application filed by the husband-petitioner for divorce under Section 13 (i) (a) of the Act. Petitioner No.1 was granted divorce on 1.12.2010 by the District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad. Against this, respondent No.2 filed an appeal before this Court. It is during the pendency of this appeal, that the parties have reached this compromise. Copy of the compromise is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-4. As per the agreed term, petitioner No.1 has agreed to pay a sum of `10 lacs as permanent alimony to respondent No.2. She on her part has agreed to part company with petitioner No.1 by allowing the divorce to stand. Out of the total amount, a sum of `5 lacs has already been paid to respondent No.2 by way of demand draft No.590741, dated 1.9.2011. The complainant-respondent No.2 has confirmed that she has received this draft. The remaining amount was agreed to be paid at the time of quashing of this FIR. Counsel for the petitioner has in his possession a demand draft bearing No.590742, dated 1.9.2011 for a s um of `5 lacs, which he hands Crl. Misc. No. M- 30633 of 2011 -3- over to respondent No.2, who is present in person before the Court. I have spoken to respondent no.2 and she has confirmed that she has compromised so also the fact that she has now received the full amount of `10 lacs as per the agreed term. Respondent No.2 states that she will not have any objection in case the present FIR is quashed. Since the parties have reached compromise and have decided to start their life afresh, no useful purpose would be served in allowing these criminal proceedings to continue. The parties otherwise have also separated. The compromise in such like matrimonial matters, would always be beneficial to both the sides and is otherwise permissible in view of law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052. However, they have realized their mistake after much delay. It is not for the first time that the matter has reached this Court. Even this Court has to spend a considerable amount of time in either allowing them to settle or to part company. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 ought to have realized the same at the initial stage. It would have saved some valuable time of this Court as well as the trial Court. The parties must compensate for wasting the time of the Courts. The present petition is, accordingly, allowed. FIR No.181, dated 17.04.2006, registered under Sections 323/406/ 498-A/506 IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, but subject to payment of `10,000/- as costs, to be deposited with the accounts of State Legal Services Authority, Crl. Misc. No. M- 30633 of 2011 -4- Haryana. If the costs is not deposited within one month, then the FIR may stand revived. November 30, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE