CRM No.M-4873 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-4873 of 2010 Date of Decision : 13.12.2011 Rajinder Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present :Ms. Upinder Kaur Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S.Brar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab None for respondent No.2. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.353 dated 03.12.2005 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 406, 498-A and 120-B IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of a compromise dated 29.09.2009 entered into between the son of the petitioner, namely, Jagroop Singh and the complainant, namely, Jaswinder Kaur-respondent No.2, wherein the matter stands settled between the parties and on the basis of the said settlement, petition preferred by Jagroop Singh son of Pal Singh for quashing of this very FIR stands allowed by this Court vide order dated 01.02.2010 passed in Criminal Misc. No.33949-M of 2009 titled as Jagroop singh Vs. State of Punjab and another. Placing reliance upon the said order, counsel for the petitioner states that the present petition preferred by mother-in-law of complainant-Jaswinder Kaur may also be allowed. CRM No.M-4873 of 2010 -2- Notice of this petition was given to the respondents. Initially, on service having been effected on respondent No.2, Ms. Deepika Verma, Advocate, had put in appearance on 23.11.2010 but thereafter, none has put in appearance for respondent No.2. It appears that in the light of the compromise entered into between the parties and in the light of the fact that the FIR qua the husband of the complainant, namely, Jagroop Singh stands quashed, complainant-Jaswinder Kaur is not interested in pursuing the matter any further, which is apparent from the order dated 01.02.2010 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. No.33949-M of 2009 also. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. In Criminal Misc. No.33949-M of 2009 titled as Jagroop Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, prayer for quashing of FIR No.353 dated 03.12.2005 under Sections 406, 498-A and 120-B IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala, was made by the son of the petitioner i.e. Jagroop Singh, who was husband of Jaswinder Kaur-respondent No.2, wherein following orders was passed by this Court:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner states that on account of matrimonial dispute, respondent No.2-Jaswinder Kaur lodged the FIR. The parties have settled their disputes. Compromise deed dated 29.9.2009 has been executed, which has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. The compromise deed has also been signed by respondent No.2. The petitioner and respondent No.2 have decided to part ways. For future peace and harmony, the parties have also decided that respondent No.2 shall not prosecute the petitioner in consequence of lodging of the FIR (Annexure P-1). The compromise deed (Annexure P-2) further mentions that respondent No.2 has agreed to accept Rs.3 lacs in lieu of all her rights flowing from the matrimonial alliance. A sum of Rs.2 lacs has already been paid to respondent No.2. CRM No.M-4873 of 2010 -3- Learned counsel for respondent No.2 admits the factum of compromise and states that in view of the terms of compromise, respondent No.2 is not ready and willing to bring evidence to court. Considering the facts that continuance of further proceedings shall disturb peace and harmony; it would be in public interest to quash the FIR and consequent proceedings; it was a matrimonial dispute which has resulted in lodging of the FIR; and since the victim herself would not be bringing evidence to court, continuance of proceedings shall result in abuse of process of court, this petition is allowed. FIR No.353 dated 3.12.2005 under Sections 406, 498-A, 120-B, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Civil Lines, Patiala and consequent proceedings, are quashed.” In view of the above order, the matter having been amicably settled between the parties and the respondent-complainant having decided not to press the matter against the accused in the FIR lodged by her in the light of the compromise dated 29.09.2009, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner, who is mother-in-law of the complainant and mother of Jagroop Singh husband of the complainant, in the FIR which stands already quashed qua the husband of the complainant would be an abuse of process of Court and therefore, cannot be allowed to continue. The present petition is thus allowed. FIR No.353 dated 03.12.2005 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 406, 498-A and 120-B IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 13.12.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) adhikari JUDGE CRM No.M-4873 of 2010 -4-