IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-25522 of 2008 Date of decision : 17.2.2009 Deepak and others … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents Coram : Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia Present: Mr.Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.S.S.Mor, Sr.DAG, Haryana for the State. Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate for respondent No.2. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed by Deepak, Parkash Chand and Smt.Sharda Devi. They pray for quashing of FIR No.90 dated 25.3.2008 registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 and 506 IPC at Police Station Sector 5, Gurgaon. Deepak-petitioner No.1 was married with Rajesh Rani- respondent No.2 on 10.12.2006 at Manjit Garden Gurgaon as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage between the parties could not survive and aggrieved by this, respondent No.2 had lodged the impugned FIR. During the pendency of the proceedings, a compromise (Annexure P-2) has been arrived at between the parties. It has been agreed between the parties that petitioner No.1 would pay Rs.5.25 Crl.Misc.No.M-25522 of 2008 lacs, to the estranged wife. The amount has to be paid in installments. Respondent No.2- Rajesh Rani is present in Court. She has been identified by her counsel Mr. Gautam Dutt. She has stated that a compromise (Anneuxre P-2) has been effected between the parties, wherein, a sum of Rs.3.50 lacs has already been paid vide two installments of Rs.2 lacs and Rs.1.50 lacs respectively. The remaining amount of Rs.1.75 lacs shall be paid at the time when decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act is to be passed by the District Judge. It is further stated that a sum of Rs.1.75 lacs would be paid to the respondent No.2-wife on the same day. Mr. Gautam Dutt Advocate has stated that as parties have kept their promise, he has no objection in case the present FIR is quashed. To allay any apprehension of respondent No.2, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that petitioner undertakes that amount of Rs.1.75 lacs shall be paid as agreed between the parties at the time of passing of the order under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. It has been further stated that it is a part of the compromise that aggrieved wife shall facilitate quashing of the FIR as pendency of FIR is one hurdle between the husband and wife parting gracefully. It has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (2) RCR (Criminal), 888 that 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25522 of 2008 when husband and wife had agreed to settle their matrimonial dispute, the Court should quash the FIR if the offence is non- compoundable. This view was further reiterated by the Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052. Taking into consideration the ratio of law in B.S.Joshi’s case and Kulwinder Singh’s case (supra), the impugned judgment alongwith subsequent proceedings arising therefrom is quashed and the present petition is accepted. [ Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia ] Judge 17.02.2009 sd 3