Crl.Misc.No. M-31009 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No. M-31009 of 2008 Date of Decision: 27 - 1 - 2009 Gopi Chand etc. .....Petitioners v. U.T. of Chandigarh and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Ram Pal Verma, Advocate for Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for U.T. Chandigarh. Mr.J.S.Bagga, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Veena respondent No.2 was married with Surinder Kumar petitioner No.2 on 17.10.2004. Due to matrimonial differences Veena had lodged case FIR No.289 dated 28.7.2005 under Sections 406, 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh. FIR has been annexed as Annexure P1. Petitioner No.1 Gopi Chand is father-in-law, petitioner No.2 Surinder Kumar is husband and petitioner No.3 Virinder Kumar is brother of husband. After recording of the FIR, a compromise has been arrived Crl.Misc.No. M-31009 of 2008 [2] between the parties and in pursuance of same, petitioner No.2 Surinder Kumar and respondent No.2 Veena had filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, Annexure P-2 for dissolution of marriage by way of decree of divorce with mutual consent. The present petition was filed seeking quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise. Mr.J.S.Bagga, Advocate has caused appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 and has admitted the factum of compromise. Complainant Veena along with her mother is present in Court. She has been identified by Mr.J.S.Bagga, Advocate. They have stated that in the present case divorce has been granted. Dowry articles have been returned. An amount of Rs.50,000/- has been given in lieu of permanent alimony and settlement of past, present and future disputes. Veena has stated that she does not wish to pursue the present FIR. It has been held in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 that where a compromise has been effected between the parties, continuation of proceedings will serve no useful purpose. Therefore, the impugned FIR along with all subsequent proceedings is quashed. Petition is disposed off. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) January 27, 2008. JUDGE RC