Cr Misc M-23718 of 2010 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-23718 of 2010 Date of decision: 01.11.2010 Heera Singh and another .. Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another .. Respondent Present:- Mr.Vivek Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Pawan Singh, D.A.G., Haryana, for respondent No.1-State. Mr.R.C.Chauhan, Advocate, for Mr.Karam Singh, Advocate, with Respondent No.2-Pinky Kaur. * * * * S.S. SARON, J. The affidavit of Pinky Kaur-respondent No.2 filed in Court today, is taken on record. Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioners Heera Singh and Smt. Surender Kaur who are the husband and mother-in-law respectively of Pinky Kaur (respondent No.2) seek quashing of the FIR No.730 dated 24.10.2009 (Annexure P-1) registered at Police Station Karnal City, District Karnal, for the offences under Sections 323, 498-A, 406, 506 and 120-B IPC. The petitioners and respondent No.2 by way of Criminal Miscellaneous No.53786 of 2010 placed on record a fresh compromise dated 02.10.2010 (Annexure A-1) which was taken on record vide order dated 15.10.2010. Heera Singh (petitioner No.1) was married to Pinky Kaur (respondent No.2) on 03.11.2004. Out of the said marriage, they had a daughter namely Jasprit Kaur, who was born on 27.10.2006. On account of the matrimonial dispute between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No.2, Cr Misc M-23718 of 2010 2 the impugned FIR dated 24.10.2009 (Annexure P-1) was registered. Now the parties have amicably resolved their dispute. The respondent No.2- Pinky Kaur and daughter of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have received a sum of Rs.4 lacs from Heera Singh (petitioner No.1). A sum of Rs.50,000/- has been received by Pinky Kaur (respondent No.2) in cash; besides, Rs.3.50,000/- has been received in the shape of FDR in the name of Jasprit Kaur (daughter of the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2). The parties have decided to part their ways. In terms of the affidavit of Pinky Kaur (respondent No.2), which has been filed in Court today and has been taken on record, it is stated by respondent No.2-Pinky Kaur that she has compromised her dispute with the petitioners and she has no objection, if the FIR (Annexure P-1) is quashed. Complainant-respondent No.2 (Pinky Kaur) is present in Court today and is identified by her counsel Mr.R.C.Chauhan, Advocate, for Mr.Karam Singh, Advocate. It is stated by Pinky Kaur (respondent No.2) that she has entered into the settlement and compromise with the petitioners of her on free will and desire, and without any pressure or undue influence. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that in case the matrimonial dispute between the parties has been amicably settled, the State would have no serious objection to the quashing of the FIR in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi versus State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the matrimonial dispute between the parties i.e. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 has been amicably settled. The parties have decided to part their ways amicably. A sum of Rs.4,00,000/- has been paid by the petitioners. Out of the said amount, a sum of Cr Misc M-23718 of 2010 3 Rs.50,000/- has been paid in cash to the complainant-Pinky Kaur (respondent No.2); besides, Rs.3,50,000/- has been credited in the FDR account of Jasprit Kaur (daughter of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2) on 14.07.2010. In B.S.Joshi's case (supra), it was held that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A in IPC was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A IPC was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. A hyper technical view, it was observed, would be counter productive and would act against the interest of women and against the object for which this provision was added. Where a petition is filed for quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise, there is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. This it was observed was not the object of Chapter XX-A of IPC. Besides, it was also observed that there should be an endeavour on the part of the Courts to encourage genuine settlement. In the present case, the parties having amicably resolved their dispute, it would be just and expedient to terminate the proceedings by quashing the FIR as the matrimonial dispute has indeed been amicably settled. In the circumstances, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and FIR No.730 dated 24.10.2009 (Annexure P-1) registered at Police Station Karnal City, District Karnal, for the offences under Sections 323, 498-A, 406, 506 and 120-B IPC and all consequential and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom shall stand quashed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE November, 01, 2010 sukhpreet