Crl. Misc. No.60072 of 2009 and - 1 - CRM-M-33309 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Crl. Misc. No.60072 of 2009 and CRM-M-33309 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 27.11.2009 **** Anurag Bhandari and others . . . . Petitioners VS. The State of Haryana and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.Rajbir Singh Gulia, Advocate with Ms.Supriya Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) Crl. Misc. No.60072 of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. CRM-M-33309 of 2009 Notice of motion. At this stage, Mr.Anil Bhardwaj, Advocate with Mr.Chandan Sharma, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of respondents No.2 & 3 and accepts notice. On the asking of the Court Mr.Amit Khatkar, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the State/respondent No.1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing of the FIR No.68/03 dated 10.2.2003 registered under Sections 498-A & 406 IPC at Police Station DLF, Gurgaon and all further proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of a compromise (Annexure P-3). Crl. Misc. No.60072 of 2009 and - 2 - CRM-M-33309 of 2009 The aforesaid FIR was registered at the instance of Nalin Sabharwal (respondent No.3). The marriage of Anurag Bhandari (petitioner No.1), who is a resident of United Kingdom (U.K.) was solemnized with Ruchika Sabharwal (respondent No.2) on 2.7.2002. The couple has no issue of the wedlock. It is alleged that in the FIR, five accused have been named, namely, Anurag Bhandari (husband), Anil Bhandari (father-in- law), Anita Bhandari (mother-in-law), Anisha Bhandari (sister of the husband) and Shashi Raj Celly (maternal uncle of the husband). It is also alleged that FIR against Anisha Bhandari (sister of the husband) has already been quashed by this Court on 20.1.2005 in CRM-M-51525 of 2003. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the marriage of petitioner No.1 with respondent No.2 has already been dissolved by decree of divorce dated 9.11.2004 by High Court of Justice Principle Registry of the Family Division County Court, U.K. It is also submitted that after the investigation of the FIR, challan has been presented and charge has been framed and one formal witness has also been examined. It is also submitted that petitioners No.1 and 2 have authorized petitioner No.3 to sign and file petition, on their behalf, for quashing of FIR on the basis of a compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to the intervention of the respectables and elders in the family, the matter has been resolved between the parties and the compromise deed has been executed on 20.11.2009, which has been signed by Anita Bhandari (petitioner No.3), as General Power of Attorney of petitioners No.1 & 2, and respondents No.2 and 3 as well. The compromise deed is also witnessed By Rajbir Singh Gulia and Adesh Kaushik. Crl. Misc. No.60072 of 2009 and - 3 - CRM-M-33309 of 2009 According to the compromise deed, the matter has been finally settled between the parties to a sum of Rs.11 lacs, out of which Rs.4 lacs have already been paid and the remaining amount of Rs.7 lacs is to be paid at the time of quashing of the FIR. It is also stated that Rs.11 lacs shall be paid towards the ‘Istri Dhan’, alimony and maintenance for present, past and future of respondent No.2. Therefore, respondent No.2 shall lay no claim against the petitioners. Respondents No.2 and 3 are present in the Court and have been identified by their Advocate, Mr.Anil Bhardwaj. Similarly petitioners No.3 & 4 are present in the Court and have been identified by the Advocate, Mr.Rajbir Singh Gulia. I have specifically asked respondents No.2 and 3 about the compromise to which they have stated that the compromise has been effected on their own free will and there is no change in it till date. Learned counsel for the State has argued that as per Section 320 Cr.P.C, Sections 498-A and 406 IPC are non- compoundable. Faced with the aforesaid situation, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of “Kulwinder Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab and others”, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, and judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of “B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another” 2003(4) SCC 675, to contend that in a case registered under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC where parties have buried the hatchet and have resolved their dispute out of the Court, this Court by invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can also compound the non-compoundable offence. Crl. Misc. No.60072 of 2009 and - 4 - CRM-M-33309 of 2009 Since, a compromise has been affected and the marriage has been dissolved and the money has been paid, therefore, the proceedings before the trial Court, henceforth, shall be an exercise in futility. A draft of Rs.7 lacs has been handed over to respondents No.2 in the Court. In view of the above, since matter has been resolved between the parties, present petition is allowed. FIR No.68/03 dated 10.2.2003 registered under Sections 498-A & 406 IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising thereform are hereby quashed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) NOVEMBER 27, 2009 JUDGE Vivek