Crl. Misc. No. M-24962 of 2011 (O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-24962 of 2011 (O & M) DATE OF DECISION: August 23, 2011 Kashmiri Lal and others .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana and another ........ RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. prays for quashing of FIR No. 194 dated 23.04.2011 under Sections 406/498-A/377/506 IPC, P.S. Thanesar, District Kurukshetra on the basis of compromise, placed on record as Annexure P-2. It transpires that petitioner no. 1-Neeraj Kumar was married to respondent no. 2-Deepika. Soon after the marriage, certain issues arose, on account of which the FIR came to be lodged. It has been pleaded that all the disputes have now been settled by way of compromise Annexure P-2. Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr. S.S. Nara, Sr. DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent no. 1. Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate, appears on behalf of respondent no. 2-complainant. On request of learned counsel, the petition is taken up for final hearing today itself. Heard. At this juncture, Deepika-respondent no. 2, as identified by her counsel, Mr. Namit Khurana has put in appearance. On questioning by Crl. Misc. No. M-24962 of 2011 (O & M) 2 Court, Deepika states that in lieu of her rights arising out of matrimony, she has agreed to accept a sum of ` 6,70,000. Two demand drafts favouring respondent no. 2 bearing nos. 446624 and 446698 dated 23.07.2011 and 13.08.2011 respectively drawn on Punjab National Bank for total sum of ` 2,85,000 have been handed over to Deepika in Court, who has accepted the same, in terms of compromise Annexure P-2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that rest of the amount shall be paid in terms of compromise Annexure P-2 at the time of second motion in proceedings under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. On acceptance of the amount, respondent no. 2-complainant states that let the FIR and proceedings be quashed. Learned counsel for the State contends that because the disputes are being settled by way of compromise, the State has no objection to quashing of the FIR and consequent proceedings. In view of the above, it transpires that the complainant is not ready and willing to prosecute the petitioners. If the victim herself is not ready to bring evidence to Court, it would be an exercise in futility if the proceedings are allowed to continue. The future life of the parties shall also be disrupted by continuance of proceedings. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 194 dated 23.04.2011 under Sections 406/498-A/377/506 IPC, P.S. Thanesar, District Kurukshetra and consequent proceedings are hereby quashed. 23.08.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE Crl. Misc. No. M-24962 of 2011 (O & M) 3