IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.23098 -M of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 SANDEEP JOHAR & ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Bikramjit Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. KDS Sidhu, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This petition has been filed under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for quashing of FIR No.73 dated 17.5.2004 under Sections 406, 498-A, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, 'A' Division, Amritsar, District Amritsar (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings, on the basis of compromise dated 21.5.2011 (Annexure P-3). 2 Respondent No.2/complainant-Monika Johar, as identified by her counsel Shri Vaibhav Narang, Advocate, is present in court, and states that indeed the FIR was lodged on account of matrimonial disputes. The disputes have been settled by way of compromise (Annexure P-3). It has also been conceded by respondent No.2 that a sum of ` 7 lacs, by way of two Demand Drafts bearing Nos. 021389 and 021390, both dated Criminal Misc. No.23098 -M of 2011 2 13.5.2011, in the sum of ` 3,50,000/- each, drawn on Bank of India, Rajouri Garden Branch, New Delhi, in favour of Post Master, Amristar, have been handed over to her today in court. 3 Respondent No.2 further states that ex-parte decree of divorce has been granted. As a condition of compromise, the petitioners are required to ensure that the decree assumes finality. The two children out of the wedlock are with respondent No.2. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that on the part of the petitioners, it shall be ensured that the decree of divorce assumes finality. 5 In view of the above, respondent No.2 states that let the FIR and proceedings be quashed to enable the parties, including respondent No.2, to live in peace. 6 Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that because the disputes have been settled by way of compromise, the State would have no objection to the quashing of the FIR. 7 In view of the stand of respondent No.2/complainant, this petition is allowed. 8 FIR No.73 dated 17.5.2004 under Sections 406, 498- A, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, 'A' Division, District Amritsar (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings, are hereby quashed. September 22, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?