IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 20391 of 2009 Date of decision: 23.11.2011 Gurdeep Singh Sandhu and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. M.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab for the State. None for respondent No. 2. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. Gurdeep Singh Sandhu and others have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 67 dated 23.03.2009 registered against the petitioners under Sections 406, 420 and 498-A IPC at police station Sadar Jalandhar on the ground that the FIR is an abuse of process of the Court. Jatinder Singh Sandhu-petitioner No. 3 is husband of the complainant and had joined as petitioner while he was stationed in Canada. He had, thus, filed this petition through his father being his attorney. It is noticed that initially petitioner No. 3 was declared a Proclaimed Offender but subsequently, he has put in appearance before the Court today on being granted protection by this Court. Vide detailed order dated 26.07.2011, this Court has observed that Sections 406 and 498A IPC have been deleted from the ambit of the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. and, has Criminal Misc. No. M- 20391 of 2009 -2- accordingly, observed that the Court can always invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to resolve such type of matrimonial dispute. Arrest of petitioner No. 3 having been stayed, he has appeared before the Court and is now present before this Court also. Without going into the aspect, if Sections 406 and 498-A are out of the purview of Section 82 (4) or person can still be declared Proclaimed Offender for such like offences, I deem it appropriate to take into consideration the prayer of the petitioners for quashing the FIR as the parties, in the meantime, have also compromised and settled their dispute amicably. This complaint was lodged by respondent No. 2-Rupinderjit Kaur Cheema. She is also present in person and stated to be residing in Canada. During the pendency of this petition, the parties have arrived at settlement at Annexure P-3, which has subsequently been placed on record. This marriage was solemnized on 08.03.2008. This marriage is stated to have broken down irretrievable leading to filing of complaint on 23.03.2009. Now the parties have resolved their matrimonial dispute and have decided to separate. The complainant has agreed to render her possible assistance for quashing of the present FIR, as per the Memorandum of Understanding (Annexure P- 3). The petitioners on their part have agreed to pay sum of ` 8,50,000/- as permanent alimony. Demand Draft No. 765395 amounting to sum of ` 8,50,000/- have been handed over by the counsel for the petitioners to the complainant, who is present in person before the Court. Criminal Misc. No. M- 20391 of 2009 -3- I have spoken to the complainant and she has confirmed and stood by the Memorandum of Understanding. As per the complainant, she has agreed to resolve the dispute and differences with the petitioners as husband and wife have decided to separate permanently. The complainant has further stated that she has agreed to accept permanent alimony of ` 8,50,000/-. There was some hesitation on the part of the complainant, who is present with her father about the validity of this draft. Counsel for the petitioner further has assured the father of the complainant that the draft has been revalidated and would be encashed if presented to the Bank. Even if there is some problem for payment of this amount, the complainant would be at liberty to approach this Court with any sort of grievance and the petitioners undertake to resolve that dispute in case it so happens to arise in future. Once the parties have decided to part ways, the trial, if allowed to continue will be an exercise in futility. Both the partners are staying in Canada and perhaps are to leave for that country shortly. Making them to wait for the end result, which is quite certain due to compromise, would further retard their journey in life to have a fresh beginning. No useful purpose would be served in allowing these proceedings to continue. As per the law laid down by Full Bench decision of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and others 2007(3) RCR (Cri.) 1052, the FIR arising out of the matrimonial disputes can always be quashed to ensure peaceful co-existence and to give a chance to estranged couple to Criminal Misc. No. M- 20391 of 2009 -4- start afresh in live. The present petition is, accordingly, allowed. FIR No. 67 dated 23.03.2009 under Sections 406, 420 and 498-A IPC at police station Sadar Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed. November 23, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE