In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M- 15152 of 2008(O&M) Date of Decision:19-01-2009 Rohit Vij and others ---Petitioners versus State of Haryana and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Amit Jhanji,Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana Mr.Opinder Prashar, Advocate, for respondent No. 2 SABINA, J.(Oral) Crl. Misc. No. 2355 of 2009 Crl. M. is allowed. Petitioners are exempted from filing certified copy of judgment/decree dated 16.9.2008 (Annexure P-4). Crl. Misc. No. 2354 of 2009 Crl. M. is allowed. Copy of judgment/decree dated 16.9.2008 (Annexure P-4) is taken on record. Criminal Misc. No. M 15152 of 2008 Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No. 101 dated 20.7.2007 under Sections 406, 498A, 506, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Sector-20, Panchkula at Annexure P-1 and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that parties Crl. Misc. No. M- 15152 of 2008(O&M) -2- had arrived at a compromise. Niti Arora-complainant and Rohit Viz- petitioner No. 1 had filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking a decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent. The said petition was allowed and a decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent was passed by the District Judge, Panchkula on 16.9.2008(Annexure P-4). Niti Arora -complainant has made a statement during divorce proceedings that she shall extend all possible assistance and co-operate with petitioner No.2 for getting the FIR, in question, quashed against petitioner No. 2 and his family members. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has not controverted the statement by the counsel for the petitioners. As per the Full Bench judgment of this in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone. A perusal of Annexure P-4, judgment passed in the divorce proceedings reveals that complainant-Niti Arora had made a statement that she would extend all possible assistance and cooperate with petitioner No. 2-Rohit Vij (Petitioner No. 1 in the present case) in getting the FIR, in question, quashed against him and his family members. She shall not claim anything towards past, present and future maintenance from petitioner-Rohit Vij. Parties have resolved their dispute regarding dowry Crl. Misc. No. M- 15152 of 2008(O&M) -3- articles and permanent alimony as she has received Rs. 30 lacs from petitioner-Rohit viz on 23.8.2007 towards dowry articles and expenses incurred by her parent at the time of her marriage. Since the parties have resolved their dispute and have decided to live in peace in future, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to quash the FIR, in question. This petition is allowed. Consequently, FIR No. 101 dated 20.7.2007 under Sections 406, 498A, 506, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Sector-20, Panchkula at Annexure P-1 and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 19, 2009 PARAMJIT