IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-9345 of 2010 Date of Decision: May 12, 2010 Kewal Singh & Others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. R.S. Athwal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) The petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No.7 dated 15.1.2010 under Sections 498-A IPC registered with Police Station, Rahon, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, on the basis of compromise, Annexure P-2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that respondent No.2, Bhupinder Kaur was Crl. Misc. No. M-9345 of 2010 [2] married to Daljit Singh, petitioner No.3. On account of matrimonial disputes, FIR came to be lodged. Better sense has prevailed on the parties and the disputes have been settled by way of compromise. Compromise deed has been placed on record as Annexure P-2 which details that a sum of Rs.5.50,000/- is required to be paid to the respondent-complainant in lieu of her right arising out of the matrimony. The said amount has been kept with Dilbagh Singh, Sarpanch of village Bharta Kalan on 3.3.2010. After the quashing of the FIR, the money would be released in favour of respondent-complainant, Bhupinder Kaur. Respondent No.2/ complainant, Bhupinder Kaur, as identified by her lawyer, is present in Court and states that she does not want to pursue the proceedings against the petitioners and would not be bringing any evidence to Court. I have considered the issue. The matter is still at investigation stage. At this stage itself, better sense has prevailed on the parties and disputes have been settled amicably. Affidavit sworn by the respondent- complainant has been filed in Court which is taken on record. As per the affidavit, it is Crl. Misc. No. M-9345 of 2010 [3] brought out that compromise has been effected between the parties and the respondent- complainant would have no objection if the FIR is quashed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that Bhupinder Kaur (respondent No.2-complainant) is the victim and the best witness of the incident of cruelty. Since she does not want to pursue the matter, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner would be a futile exercise. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. FIR No.7 dated 15.1.2010 under Sections 498-A IPC registered with Police Station, Rahon, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar and consequent proceedings are hereby quashed. (AJAI LAMBA) May 12, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?