IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-1106 of 2009 Date of decision: January 30, 2009 Baroni Bansal and Others ….. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ….. Respondents Present: Mr. D.R. Singla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** S.S. SARON, J. Reply by way of affidavit of respondent No.2 filed in Court today is taken on record. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of case FIR No.225 dated 19.8.2006 registered at Police Station City Barnala for the offences under Sections 313, 316, 406 and 498-A Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short) on the basis of compromise and also for quashing the order dated 11.12.2008 (Annexure P1) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala whereby the cancellation report submitted by the Police has not been accepted by observing that the aforesaid offences are not compoundable. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Smt. Annu Bala (respondent No.2) praying for taking action against Parveen Kumar Bansal (non-petitioner) (husband of the complainant/respondent No.2), Baroni Bansal (petitioner No.1) (sister of the husband of the complainant), Kamlesh Rani (petitioner No.2) (mother-in-law of the complainant/respondent No.2) and Rajinder Kumar Bansal (petitioner No.3) (father-in-law of the complainant). The marriage between complainant/respondent No.2 Smt. Annu Bala was solemnized with Parveeen Kumar Crl. Misc. No. M-1106 of 2009 [2] at Barnala at 14.8.2005. On account of the matrimonial dispute between the parties, FIR was got registered by the complainant alleging that the petitioners had taunted her for bringing inadequate dowry. In fact her parents had given sufficient dowry. During the pendency of the case, the parties have entered into a compromise and due payment in terms of the settlement that was reached at between the parties has been made to the complainant/respondent No.2. Consequently, the Police submitted a cancellation report in Court, which has been declined by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala vide order dated 11.12.2008 (Annexure P1). The complainant/respondent No.2 made a statement on 20.9.2008 before the learned Magistrate that the matter has been compromised so the cancellation report may be accepted. However, the cancellation report was not accepted. It is therefore prayed that since the matter has been compromised, the FIR and the impugned order (Annexure P1) may be quashed. Smt. Annu Bala (respondent No.2/complainant) is present in Court. In terms of the affidavit filed by her which has been taken on record, she had stated that the matter has already been settled between the parties and she has no objection if the FIR is quashed. Smt. Annu Bala (complainant/respondent No.2) has been identified by her counsel. It is stated by her that she has compromised the matter with the petitioners of her own free will and without any kind of pressure or undue influence. Therefore, it is submitted that the FIR may be quashed. Indeed the matrimonial dispute between the parties has been settled, the Police itself has filed a cancellation report on the basis of compromise. The complainant/respondent No.2 made a statement to the effect that she accepts the compromise. In B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 it was observed that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 CrPC would not be a bar to the Crl. Misc. No. M -1106 of 2009 [3] exercise of power of quashing. The High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 CrPC does not limit or affect its powers under Section 482 CrPC. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and keeping in view the fact that the dispute has been amicably resolved, the ends of justice would require that the FIR and the consequential proceedings including the impugned order dated 11.12.2008 (Annexure P1) in pursuance thereof are quashed. This is more so for the reasons that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending when the result is known. In view of the above, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and the FIR No.225 dated 19.8.2006 registered at Police Station City Barnala for the offences under Sections 313, 316, 406 and 498-A IPC and all consequential and subsequent proceedings including the order dated 11.12.2008 (Annexure P1) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala shall stand quashed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE January 30, 2009 amit