CRM-M No. 22234 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No. 22234 of 2011 Date of Decision: 26.07.2011 Rajnish Kant and another ...... Petitioners Versus State of Haryaan and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. S.K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This is a petition for quashing of FIR No. 29 dated 09.11.2010, under Sections 498-A, 406, 420, 323, 506/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Women Cell, Sonepat. Notice of motion. Mr. Man Mohan Sikka, DAG, Haryana, at the asking of the Court , accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Mr.Gurinder Singh, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3. Parties are present. The complainant has been identified by the CRM-M No. 22234 of 2011 2 investigating officer ASI Gajraj Singh. The matter had been sent to Mediation Center of this Court where parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and pursuant to that payment of ` 50,000/- has been made by the petitioner and a petition for divorce by mutual consent has already been filed. Another amount of ` 50,000/- along with some gold articles has been handed over to the complainant in Court. It is further stated that the remaining amount of ` 1,50,000/- shall be paid on the final date fixed for divorce petition viz. 10.12.2011. The complainant has further stated that she would also withdraw the petition made by her for maintenance since on receipt of this amount of ` 3 lacs her entire claim for permanent alimony/Stree Dhan/dowry would stand fully satisfied and she would withdraw the same on the next date of hearing. In view there of this petition is allowed and the present FIR bearing No. 29 dated 09.11.2010, under Sections 498-A, 406, 420, 323, 506/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Women Cell, Sonepat, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. It is, however, made clear that in case the final payment as mandated by the petitioner is not made by him, the complainant would be at liberty to revive this FIR. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE July 26, 2011 sunita