Criminal Misc. No. M-29444 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-29444 of 2008 Date of decision: August 17, 2009 Sanjeev Mittal & others -Petitioners Versus State of Haryana & another -Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2, complainant. Rajan Gupta, J.(Oral) The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 425 dated 11-09-2008 under Sections 323/406/498-A/341/506 IPC, registered at police station City Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, (Annexure P-1) and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. Shalu, complainant/respondent No.2 is present in Court. She is duly identified by her counsel. She has filed an affidavit in Court today ( taken on record as Mark 'A') admitting therein the factum of compromise, on the basis of which her marriage with petitioner No.1 stands dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act by mutual consent. She has also stated in the affidavit that she has received Rs. 7,80,000/- in full & final settlement of her matrimonial dispute. She states that she has no objection if the present FIR is quashed. Criminal Misc. No. M-29444 of 2008 2 Learned State counsel submits that since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, the State would not stand in the way of quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise. The compromise is in the interest of the parties and after the matter has been resolved by an amicable settlement, no useful purpose is likely to be served with continuance of the criminal proceedings, which would be a futile exercise. In view of the above, the present FIR and the consequent proceedings deserve to be quashed in the light of the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR ( Crl.) 1052. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed, the FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. [Rajan Gupta] Judge August 17, 2009. 'ask'