Crl. Misc No. M-15531 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc No. M-15531 of 2009 Date of decision : 20.07.2009 Surinder Kumar and Others ....Petitioners V/s Union Territory, Chandigarh and another ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. J.K. Bhatti, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the U.T. Chandigarh-respondent No. 1. Mr. S.K. Sood, Advocate for respondent No. 2. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 84 dated 03.03.2007 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 324 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station, Sector 34, Chandigarh and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 16.05.2009 (Annexure P-2). Counsel for the petitioners as well as respondent No. 2 have pointed out that both the parties are present in Court today. They have been duly identified by their respective counsel. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 in the Court today and the same is taken on record as mark 'A'. In the affidavit it has been stated that respondent No. 2 have compromised the matter with petitioners. Learned counsel for Crl. Misc No. M-15531 of 2009 2 the petitioner further submits that out of the total amount of Rs. 03.00 lacs agreed between the parties, Rs. 1.50 lacs had already been paid to the respondent No. 2 as part payment and balance amount of Rs. 1.5 lacs has been paid today vide demand draft No. 205415 dated 22.04.2009 as full and final settlement of her claim in respect of permanent alimony. Learned counsel also submits that a divorce petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 is pending in the Court of District Judge, Chandigarh. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has stated that respondent No. 2 has no interest in pursuing the FIR in question and thus, the same be quashed on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel for the State submits that State has no objection to the quashing of the FIR in question as the matrimonial dispute has been amicably resolved by the parties. 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. In view of the above, the present FIR and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed in the light of the decision of 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 in question and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. 20.07.2009 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE