Crl. Misc.No. M-36433 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc.No. M-36433 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 13.05.2011 Sandeep Kumar and another ....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. L.M. Gulati, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr DAG, Punjab for respondent No. 1-State Mr. Rajiv Kumar Saini, Advocate for respondent No. 2 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.52 dated 14.11.2007 (Annexure P-1) under Section 498-A of IPC, registered at Police Station Chhehratta , District Amritsar and all the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise affected between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2. Brief facts of the case are that marriage of petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 12.12.1999 at Satkar Palace Chehratta Amritsar as per Hindu rites. Out of this wedlock, one son namely Chirag Sharma was born who is of five years of age and studying in a private school. But due to temperamental difference and change in attitude, both petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 got separated in the year 2005. Several efforts were made to reconcile the matter but all in vain. The present FIR was registered on 14.11.2007. Crl. Misc.No. M-36433 of 2010 (O&M) -2- After presentation of the challan, the charges were framed and now the matter is fixed for prosecution of evidence for June. Counsel for the petitioner has place on record the judgment dated 13.01.2011 passed by this Court in FAO No M-52 of 2010 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was disposed of on account of compromise between the parties. However, the appeal was converted in to the petitioner under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act for decree of divorce with mutual consent. After recording the joint statement of petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2. Subsequently, the parties have been granted decree of divorce by way of mutual consent. as per agreement, respondent No. 2 has received sum of ` 3,80,000/- towards full and final payment for permanent alimony. She has further stated that she has no objection if the F.I.R is quashed. Counsel for respondent has put in appearance and has tendered an affidavit of Kiran who is present in Court and has been duly identified by her counsel. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 910 has examined a case where quashing was sought of an FIR under Section 498-A IPC being non-compoundable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :- “Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the parties have settled their differences. It was submitted on behalf of the complainant Smt. Sadhna Madnawat that she is not interested in prosecuting the appellants. It may be pertinent to mention that the parties hail from cultured and educated families. It was also submitted that the appellant's parents are suffering from multiple ailments because of advanced age. The appellant's father is a retired Professor and Dean, Veterinary College, Mathura and he had undergone transplant of his kidney and the appellant's mother is suffering from multiple ailments and is virtually bed-ridden.” Crl. Misc.No. M-36433 of 2010 (O&M) -3- In view of the above cited judgment, FIR No.52 dated 14.11.2007 (Annexure P-1) under Section 498-A of IPC, registered at Police Station Chhehratta , District Amritsar is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. Petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE May 13, 2011 G.Arora