IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-35042 of 2010 Date of decision: 09.12.2010 Iqbal Singh and Others …. Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ….. Respondents Present : Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. H.S. Sran, Addl. A.G, Haryana. Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate for the complainant/respondent No.2. *** S.S. SARON, J. The Vakalatnama of Ravi Nehra (petitioner No.3) notarized by Barrister, Solicitor and Notary Public, 13-6980 Maritz Drive, Mississauga Ontario and endorsed by the Chandigarh Administration filed in Court today is taken on record. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) seeking quashing of FIR No. 6 dated 3.1.2009 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Urban Estate, Rohtak for the offences under Sections 354, 498-A, 406, 506, 120-B and 420 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short). The FIR (Annexure P1) has been registered on the complaint of Seema (respondent No.2) against the petitioners. According to the complainant Seema (respondent No.2), her marriage was solemnized with Ravi Crl. Misc. No. M-35042 of 2010 [2] Nehra (petitioner No.3) on 7.3.2008 at Rohtak according to Hindu rites and customs. On account of the matrimonial dispute between Seema (respondent No.2) and Ravi Nehra (petitioner No.3), the FIR (Annexure P1) was got recorded. Now, with the intervention of the relatives and friends, all disputes between the parties have been settled and a compromise deed (Annexure P2) has been recorded between the parties. In terms of the compromise (Annexure P2), the petitioners agreed to pay a sum of `12,00,000/- by way of demand draft to Seema (respondent No.2) in lieu of her dowry articles, Streedhana and maintenance. Seema (respondent No.2), it was agreed, would not claim any thing from the property of the petitioners and all cases pending between the parties, it was agreed, shall be withdrawn /got quashed. Besides, Ravi Nehra (Petitioner No.3) and Seema (respondent No.2) were to obtain a divorce from a Court of competent jurisdiction. On the last date of hearing (i.e. 3.12.2010), an amount of `12,00,000/- by way of six drafts in favour of Seema (respondent No.2) was handed over to her in Court and the same were accepted by her. It was submitted by her that she has no objection to the quashing of FIR. Seema (respondent No.2) has also deposed an affidavit dated 3.12.2010 stating that after receipt of the payment of `12,00,000/-, she would have no objection to the quashing of FIR. Besides, the compromise had been entered into between the parties without any force, fraud or coercion. Crl. Misc. No. M-35042 of 2010 [3] In the facts and circumstances, the matrimonial dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has submitted that Seema (respondent No.2) has no objection to the quashing of the FIR. Mr. H.S. Sran, Addl. A.G., Haryana has submitted that in case the matrimonial dispute has been amicably settled between the parties, the State would have no serious objection to the quashing of the FIR in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675. In B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, (supra), it has held by the Supreme Court that for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, if quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. Besides, the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in the case of a matrimonial dispute and Section 320 CrPC does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. In respect of matrimonial cases, it was rather held that it is the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, it may appropriately be noticed that the matrimonial dispute between Ravi Nehra (petitioner No.3) and Seema (respondent No.2) has been amicably settled and the parties have decided to part their ways. Crl. Misc. No. M-35042 of 2010 [4] Respondent No.2 has received demand drafts for an amount of `12,00,000/-. She has stated that she would have no objection to the quashing of the FIR. Even in Court today, her counsel has stated that the parties have amicably resolved their dispute and the complainant has no objection to the quashing of the FIR and she is also ready to withdraw the case. It is also stated by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant/respondent No.2 that Ravi Nehra (petitioner No.3) has obtained an ex parte decree of divorce from the Court at Canada and Seema (respondent No.2) would accept the ex-parte decree of divorce. It may also be noticed that the challan in the case has not yet been filed. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances it would be just and expedient to terminate the proceedings by quashing the FIR. In view of the afore-noticed facts and circumstances, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No.6 dated 3.1.2009 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Urban Estate, Rohtak for the offences under Sections 354, 498-A, 406, 506, 120-B and 420 IPC and all subsequent and consequential proceedings arising therefrom shall stand quashed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE December 09, 2010 amit