Crl.Misc.No.M-31074 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Misc.No.M-31074 of 2009 Date of Decision: 30.11.2009 Deepak Garg and others .....Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and another ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Nandan Jindal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. C.S. Brar,DAG, Punjab for respondent no.1. Mr. Satish Goel, Advocate for respondent no.2. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Crl.Misc.No.56163 of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. Crl.Misc.No.M-31074 of 2009 Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing of FIR No.91 dated 4.6.2009, registered under Sections 498-A/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station City Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of a compromise. The petitioners are the husband and mother-in-law of the complainant-respondent no.2. The complainant-respondent no.2 lodged the aforementioned FIR complaining of the commission of offences narrated in first information report. Crl.Misc.No.M-31074 of 2009 2 Counsel for the petitioners submits that after the lodging of the FIR, the petitioners and respondent no.2 have compromised the dispute by way of compromise dated 29.10.2009 (Annexure P-2). On the basis of the settlement, petitioner no.1 and the complainant have agreed to part ways. They have been granted a decree of divorce by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur on 19.11.2009. A sum of Rs.2.00 lacs has been paid to respondent no.2. It has been agreed that the custody of the minor child would remain with the husband, petitioner no.1. It is prayed that in view of the compromise between the parties, the FIR and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed. Counsel for the complainant (respondent no.2) acknowledges the correctness of the compromise, the receipt of Rs.2.00 lacs by the complainant and that the marriage has been brought to an end by grant of a decree of divorce. Deepak Garg and Meenu Garg (the complainant) are present in court and have been duly identified by their respective counsel. They have filed affidavits dated 30.11.2009 in court today, which are taken on record and are assigned mark `A' and `B'. Meenu Garg states that she has no objection if the FIR is quashed. Counsel for the State of Punjab submits that as parties have entered into a compromise, the State does not oppose the prayer for quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the compromise and the affidavits filed by petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2. It is no doubt true that the offences complained of, are non- compoundable. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with a similar controversy, in B.S. Joshi and others V. State of Haryana and Crl.Misc.No.M-31074 of 2009 3 another, 2003(2) RCR (Criminal) 888, has held that in cases arising from matrimonial disputes, where parties have settled their dispute, by a bonafide settlement, the High Courts in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be justified in quashing proceedings emanating from matrimonial disputes. A perusal of the facts of the present case reveals that, petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 have arrived at a bonafide compromise and have been granted a decree of divorce. To permit prosecution to carry on would, in my opinion, be an exercise in futility and a wastage of public time and money. In view of the compromise, the complainant and her witnesses are not likely to support the prosecution case. It is a fit case, where this Court in the exercise of jurisdiction, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should put an end to these futile criminal proceedings. Consequently, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.91 dated 4.6.2009, registered under Sections 498-A/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station City Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. 30.11.2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE