IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDGIARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 2014 of 2009 Date of decision: March 25, 2009 Sumit Kumar and others …. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another …. Respondents Present: Mr. Jitender Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** S.S. SARON, J. Affidavit of Smt. Ritu (respondent No.2) filed in Court today is taken on record. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 101 dated 30.3.2006 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Division No.6, Jalandhar for the offences under Sections 406, 498-A/34 Indian Penal Code (“IPC”- for short) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise that has been entered into between the parties. Respondent No.2 Smt. Ritu was married with petitioner No1. On account of the matrimonial dispute between them, FIR (Annexure P1) was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2. With the intervention of relatives and friends, the dispute has been amicably settled and the parties have been decided to part their ways. Learned counsel for the parties have stated that a joint petition under Crl. Misc. No. M- 2014 of 2009 [2] Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been filed seeking dissolution of the marriage solemnized between respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 which is pending in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar. The complainant/respondent No.2 Smt. Ritu is present in Court and is identified by her counsel Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate. It is stated by her that she has no objection to the quashing of the FIR and that she is making a statement of her own free will and desire and without any kind of undue influence. The draft for an amount of Rs.3 lacs has been prepared and the same is to be given to respondent No.2 Smt. Ritu on 30.3.2009 in proceedings under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that in case the matrimonial dispute has been amicably settled, the State would have no serious objection to the quashing of the FIR in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 wherein it was held that in respect of matrimonial disputes, there should be an effort to encourage genuine settlements. Besides, it was held that quashing of criminal proceedings or FIR in the cases of matrimonial dispute is permissible and Section 320 CrPC does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. Thus the High Court in exercise of its inherent power can quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in the case of a matrimonial dispute. In the present case, the matrimonial dispute having been amicably settled, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal prosecution. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the matrimonial dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. A draft for an amount of Rs.3 lacs has been prepared which is to be given to respondent No.2-complainant. A joint petition under Section 13-B has also been Crl. Misc. No. M- 2014 of 2009 [3] filed. Therefore, in view of the ratio of the judgment of B.S. Joshi’s case (Supra), the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. In view of the above, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and FIR No.101 dated 30.3.2006 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Division No.6, Jalandhar for the offences under Sections 406, 498-A/34 IPC and all consequential and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom shall stand quashed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE March 25, 2009 amit