Crl.M.No. M-10656 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1) Crl.M.No. M-10656 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 15.11.2011 ... Jawahar Lal Grover ................Petitioner vs. State of Punjab and another .................Respondents 2) Crl.M.No. M-10658 of 2010 (O&M) ... Subhash Chandra Grover ................Petitioner vs. State of Punjab and another .................Respondents 3) Crl.M.No. M-29671 of 2010 (O&M) ... Neelam Malhotra ................Petitioner vs. State of Punjab and another .................Respondents 4) Crl.M.No. M-26257 of 2011 (O&M) ... Dhiraj Malhotra ................Petitioner vs. State of Punjab and another .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Crl.M.No. M-10656 of 2010 -2- Present: Sh. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioners Sh. Amit Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Sh. Sanjiv Manrai, Advocate for respondent No.2. ... K.C. Puri, J. Vide this order, I intend to dispose of Crl.M.Nos. M-10656 of 2010, M-10658 of 2010, M-29671 of 2010 and M-26257 of 2011, as all these petitions arise out of same FIR. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from Crl.M.No. M-10656 of 2010. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 46 dated 2.5.2009, under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC, registered at Police Station Division No.2, Pathankot, District Gurdaspur, on the basis of compromise. This is a matrimonial dispute, which has been settled by the intervention of the Mediator. Terms of compromise have been incorporated before the Mediator on 5.8.2011. As per that compromise, an amount of ` 13,50,000/- is payable by the petitioner to Priya daughter of the complainant. The said amount has been paid through 3 drafts drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Arun Vihar, Noida, the detail of which is given as under:- DD No.865001 dated 20.10.2011 ` 4,50,000/- DD No.865000 dated 20.10.2011 ` 4,00,000/- DD No.735042 dated 27.08.2011 ` 5,00,000/- Crl.M.No. M-10656 of 2010 -3- Counsel for the complainant has accepted the said drafts and has also stated at the Bar that the matter has been compromised. As per the terms of the compromise, parties have to file petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. However, it is pointed out that wife filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which has been allowed ex parte. The petitioner- husband has moved an application for setting aside that ex parte decree. Now, counsel for the parties have stated at the Bar that parties have resolved the matter. So, instead of filing an application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, the application for setting aside the ex parte decree, would be withdrawn by the petitioner-husband, as the decree of divorce has already been passed between the parties on 17.3.2010. So, the terms of compromise stand modified to that extent. This is a matrimonial dispute, which has been amicably settled. So, in view of compromise and in view of authority reported as Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, the abovesaid FIR stands quashed. Further proceedings, in pursuant to that FIR also stand quashed. ( K.C. Puri ) 15.11.2011 Judge chugh