CRM-M-29574 of 2009 - 1 – IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CRM-M-29574 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 17.11.2009 **** Ritesh Singal and others . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Haryana and another . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate with Mr.Rose Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Amit Khatkar, AAG, Haryana. Mr.Manoj Tanwar, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) 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.239 dated 4.5.2008 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 406 & 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for shot ‘IPC’) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of a compromise. The aforesaid FIR is registered at the instance of respondent No.2. Later on, due to the intervention of the respectables and elders in the family, a compromise has been effected between the parties on 6.10.2009, which is placed on record as Annexure P-2. Notice was issued. Pursuant thereto, reply has been filed by State of Haryana. CRM-M-29574 of 2009 - 2 – Both, Ritesh (petitioner No.1) and Ruchika (respondent No.2/complainat) are present in the Court and have been identified by their Advocates Mr.N.S. Shekhawat and Mr.Manoj Tanwar, respectively. I have asked Ruchika (respondent No.2/complainant) about the compromise to which she has stated that compromise (Annexure P-2) has been effected between the parties and is in existence till today without any change. Ruchika (respondent No.2/complainant) has also stated that now she is living with her husband (Ritesh-petitioner No.1) in her matrimonial home. Learned counsel for the State has argued that offence under Section 323 is compoundable but Sections 324, 406 & 498-A IPC are non-compoundable as per Section 320 Cr.P.C. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision of Full bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab and others, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, to contend that if the parties have decided to bury the hatched then even a non-compoundable offences can also be compounded. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case where dispute between the husband and the wife is over, it would be an exercise in futility to continue with the present FIR. Therefore, the present FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) NOVEMBER 17, 2009 JUDGE Vivek