IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-2331 of 2009 Date of decision: February 5, 2009 Raj Kishore and others ….. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ….. Respondents Present: Mr. K.K. Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Sanjay Tangri, Advocate for the respondent No.4. **** S.S. SARON, J. Mr. Sanjay Tangri, Advocate has put in appearance for respondent No.4 along with respondent No.4 in person. The Vakalatnama filed in Court today is taken on record. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) seeking quashing of case FIR No.357 dated 26.8.2003 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Sadar, Jallandhar for the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. The FIR (Annexure P1) has been registered on the statement of Mrs. Anju (respondent No.4) who has alleged that she was married with Raj Kishore (petitioner No.1) on 14.4.2000 at Jalandhar. The various articles were given as dowry. The parties had a son on 25.5.2001. However, the petitioners made demands for dowry and harassed her (complainant/respondent No.4). On these allegations, the FIR was registered. Now by a compromise dated 17.9.2008 (Annexure P2), the parties have settled their dispute. The parties have agreed to live peacefully with each other. Respondent No.4/complainant is now residing with her husband Raj Kishor Crl. Misc. No. M-2331 of 2009 [2] (petitioner No.1). She is present in Court and is identified by her counsel. It is stated by her that she has no objection to the canceling of FIR and that she is living peacefully with her husband (petitioner No.1). The joint affidavit dated 16.10.2008 which is attached with Crl. Misc. petition is admitted to be correct. It is submitted that in fact even before the compromise (Annexure P2), the parties have been living together and they had another son on 13.9.2008. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that in view the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, the State would have no serious objection to the quashing of the FIR if the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the matrimonial dispute between the parties has indeed been settled. The complainant/respondent No.4 is residing with her husband Raj Kishore (petitioner No.1). The parties have thereafter had a son also. In B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana’s case (Supra), it was observed that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 CrPC would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. In the facts and circumstances, the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and case FIR No.357 dated 26.8.2003 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Sadar Jalandhar for the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC and all consequential and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom shall stand quashed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE February 5, 2009 amit