Criminal Misc. No. M- 9955 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 9955 of 2011 Date of decision:- 26.4.2011 Yashwant Singh @ Billu ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. S.S. Narula, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Virk, DAG Haryana for respondent No.1-State. Mr. D.S. Malik, Advocate for respondent No.2-complainant. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 162 dated 21.6.2008 under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Urban Estate, Rohtak (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise. The petitioner got married to respondent No.2 on 8.6.2003 at Jind as per Hindu rites. One child was born out of the said wedlock on 23.5.2004. Due to differences between the parties, a petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act was filed but the District Judge Family Court, Hisar has dismissed the petition vide judgment dated 8.5.2010 and appeal against the said judgment is pending in this Court viz. FAO No.3488 of 2010. Respondent No.2 got registered this FIR in question against the petitioner. After investigation, challan was presented and petitioner was charge-sheeted by the Additional Chief Judicial Criminal Misc. No. M- 9955 of 2011 -2- Magistrate, Rohtak for offence under Sections 498-A,406 and 506 IPC vide order dated 4.9.2010. The trial is now pending for prosecution evidence. In the FAO No.3488 of 2010 the matter was referred to the mediation and conciliation center and a compromise was effected on 3.3.2011 in the mediation center. Compromise dated 3.3.2011 is Annexure P-4. The petitioner has paid respondent No.2 a sum of Rs.15.50 lacs as permanent alimony and al other claims including dowry and Istridhan. The parties have agreed that after receiving the said amount, respondent No.2 will not claim anything against the petitioner. The petitioner and respondent No.2 agreed to file a petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act by way of mutual consent. Counsel for respondent No.2 has put in appearance and tendered the affidavit of respondent No.2-Sunita @ Pinki, who is present in the Court and identified by her counsel. As per affidavit, she has received a sum of Rs.15.50 lacs from the petitioner towards full and final settlement and she has no objection if the FIR in question registered against the petitioner is quashed with all subsequent proceedings. Mr. P.S. Virk, DAG Haryana informs the Court that the parties have entered into compromise and the matter before the court below is fixed for 23.7.2011 for evidence of prosecution. In view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 910 has examined a case where quashing was sought of an FIR under Section 498-A IPC being non-compoundable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :- “Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the parties Criminal Misc. No. M- 9955 of 2011 -3- have settled their differences. It was submitted on behalf of the complainant Smt. Sadhna Madnawat that she is not interested in prosecuting the appellants. It may be pertinent to mention that the parties hail from cultured and educated families. It was also submitted that the appellant's parents are suffering from multiple ailments because of advanced age. The appellant's father is a retired Professor and Dean, Veterinary College, Mathura and he had undergone transplant of his kidney and the appellant's mother is suffering from multiple ailments and is virtually bed-ridden.” Consequently, in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (supra) and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another (supra), FIR No. 162 dated 21.6.2008 under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Urban Estate, Rohtak is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. April 26, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE