IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc M 28152 of 2010 Date of decision: 15.11.2010 Rahul and anr …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and anr …Respondents Present: Mr Arihant Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr MC Beri, Addl AG Punjab. Mr GN Malik, Advocate with Smt Pooja Rani (respdt-2) In person. S.S.SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioners seek quashing of FIR 225 dated 9.6.2010 registered at PS Tripuri Town, District Patiala for the offences under Sections 498A/506 IPC, on the basis of compromise that has been reached at between the parties. Cr Misc M- 28152 of 2010 2 The marriage between Rahul (petitioner-1) and Ms Pooja Rani (respondent-2) was solemnized on 28.2.2009. The parties have a daughter from the marriage, who was born on 25.1.2010. She is in custody of respondent-2. Due to a matrimonial dispute between the parties, FIR (P1) was registered. The same has now been compromised and it has been resolved that the parties cannot pull on together and there is no chance of cohabitation and reconciliation between them. Therefore, they have decided to part ways amicably. A petition for dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act (Act – for short) has been filed by the parties. In view of the settlement, it is stated that Ms Pooja Rani (respondent-2) has no objection if the FIR is quashed. In this regard, she has deposed an affidavit dated 21.9.2010 (P3). She is present in Court and is identified by her counsel. It is stated by her that she has no objection to the quashing of the FIR as she has amicably settled her dispute with the petitioners. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Mangaljit Kaur of PS Tripuri Town, Patiala, states that the petitioners are the only accused and the mother-in-law is not an accused. It is also stated that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2003 (2) RCR (Cr.) 888, the State would have no serious objection to the quashing of the FIR in the case especially when the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial dispute. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. The matrimonial dispute between the parties has indeed been amicably settled. The parties have decided to part ways amicably. A joint petition for dissolution of the marriage under Section 13B of the Act has Cr Misc M- 28152 of 2010 3 also been filed. Ms Pooja Rani (respondent-2) has deposed an affidavit (P3) to the effect that she has compromised the matter and has received a lump sum maintenance allowance of Rs 2,75,000/- in Court and is satisfied with the maintenance allowance and has no objection to the quashing of the FIR against both the petitioners. In BS Joshi’s case (supra), the Supreme Court held that in matrimonial disputes where parties have amicably settled their disputes, inherent powers can be exercised so as to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice. In fact it has been emphasized that the parties to matrimonial dispute should be encouraged to compromise their disputes. In the present case the parties have indeed amicably settled their dispute. All the claims inter se stand settled. A sum of Rs 2,75,000/- has been paid as lump sum maintenance allowance to respondent-2. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances particularly the fact that the parties have amicably resolved their dispute, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the present FIR. In view of the above, this petition is allowed, the impugned FIR 225 dated 9.6.2010 registered at PS Tripuri Town, Patiala, for the offences under Sections 498A/506 IPC and all subsequent and consequential proceedings in pursuance thereof, shall stand quashed. 15.11.2010 ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge