IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc M- 12146 of 2010 Date of decision: 14.7.2010 Mangal Sain @ Rinku and ors …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and anr …Respondents Present: Ms Pooja Chopra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr VPS Sidhu, AAG Punjab. Ms Maninder Kaur, Advocate for respondent-2 with respondent No.2 in person. S.S.SARON, J. Ms Maninder Kaur, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent-2 along with respondent-2 in person. She has filed her Vakalatnama, which is taken on record. The affidavit dated 9.4.2010 of Rupali – respondent-2 and the agreement (compromise) dated 9.4.2010 filed in Court today are taken on record. Heard counsel for the parties. This petition has been filed seeking quashing of the FIR 269 dated 13.7.2002 (P1) registered at PS Kotwali, Patiala, for the offences under Sections 406, 498A and 506 IPC. The quashing of the FIR is sought in view of the compromise entered into between the parties on 9.4.2010 filed in Court today. The affidavit of the complainant-respondent-2 has also been filed in Court. The same are taken on record. Responent-2 – Ms Rupali was married to Mangal Sain (petitioner-1) @ Rinku on 6.12.2001. They had a daughter from the marriage who is 6 years of age and is living with Rupali –respondent-2. Due to temperamental differences between the Cr Misc M- 12146 of 2010 2 parties, a dispute arose between respondent-2 and petitioner-1, which resulted in the registration of the FIR (P1). Now, the matter has been compromised and the parties have decided to part ways amicably. In terms of the compromise, it has inter alia been agreed that petitioner-1 would pay respondent-2 a sum of Rs 1.60 lakhs as lump sum maintenance. It is the accepted position between the petitioners and the complainant that a sum of Rs 50,000/- has been received by respondent-2 on 9.4.2010 and the balance amount was to be received in Court today, which, it is stated, has been duly received by her. Since the parties have compromised the matter, learned counsel for the State submits that the State would have no serious objection to quashing of the FIR in view of the law laid down in the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2003 (2) RCR (Cr) 888 wherein it has been held that in matrimonial disputes inherent powers can be exercised to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice and Section 320 CrPC would not be a bar to the exercise of inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. In fact it has been emphasized that the parties to matrimonial dispute should be encouraged to compromise the matter. In the present case the parties have amicably settled their dispute. All the claims inter se stand settled. Therefore, the matter having been amicably resolved, it would be just and expedient to terminate the proceedings. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.269 dated 13.7.2002 (P1) registered at PS Kotwali Patiala for the offences under Sections 406, 498-A and 506 IPC and all subsequent and consequential proceedings arising therefrom, shall stand quashed. 14.7.2010 ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge