Crl. Misc. No.M-12407 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Crl. Misc. No.M-12407 of 2011 (O&M) Dharam Singh and others ..... Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents 2. Crl. Misc. No.M-21167 of 2011 (O&M) Mandar Singh @ManMander Singh ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents Date of Decision: 29.08.2011 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present: Ms. Sunita Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Bhullar, AAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advocate, for respondent No.2. L.N. MITTAL, J. By this common order, I am disposing two petitions i.e. CRM No.M-12407 of 2011 filed by Dharam Singh and two othres & CRM No.M-21167 of 2011 filed by Mandar Singh @ManMander Singh as both these petitions have been filed for quashing of same FIR No.80 dated 30.07.2009 under Sections 498A/506/323/34 IPC registered at Police Station Dayalpura, District Bathinda (Annexure P-1) in view of the Crl. Misc. No.M-12407 of 2011 (O&M) -2- compromise (Annexure P-2) effected with respondent No.2 – complainant. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 on instructions from respondent No.2 who is said to be present in person states that parties have effected compromise (Annexure P-2) and, therefore, respondent No.2 has no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. Affidavit of respondent No.2 to this effect filed today in Court is also taken on record. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. In appropriate cases, FIR can be quashed on the basis of compromise by exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. even if the offences are not compoundable. It was so held by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2007(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1052. The impugned FIR is a result of matrimonial dispute between petitioner No.1 Dharam Singh and respondent No.2 complainant. The said dispute has been amicably settled. Pursuant to the compromise, they have started living together as husband and wife. Accordingly, it is a fit case in which the FIR should be quashed. For the reasons aforesaid, both the instant petitions are allowed and the impugned FIR No.80 dated 30.07.2009 under Sections 498A/506/323/34 IPC registered at Police Station Dayalpura, District Bathinda (Annexure P-1) is quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. (L.N. MITTAL) 29.08.2011 JUDGE manju