Criminal Misc. No. M-6344 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-6344 of 2009 Date of decision:18.03.2009 Gurdev Singh Khatra ……Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another …..Respondent BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. IPS Kohli, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Abhishekh Chautala, AAG, Punjab for the respondent. Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent no.2. Rajive Bhalla,J.(Oral) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.88, dated 17.10.2007, registered under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Shahpur Kandi, District Gurdaspur, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, as the petitioner and the complainant-respondent no. 2 have compromised the matter. Counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the complainant submit that, parties have resolved their disputes by way of settlement and as a result, have severed their matrimonial ties. They have been granted a decree of divorce, by mutual consent. It is prayed that, in view of the settlement between the parties, the present petition be allowed and the FIR and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed. 1 Criminal Misc. No. M-6344 of 2009 The Complainant, Ms. Anmol Kaur Cheema, is present in Court and acknowledges the settlement, the grant of a decree of divorce and the fact, that the petitioner and respondent no. 2 have parted ways after settlement of their matrimonial disputes. In support of her statement, she has filed an affidavit dated 10.03.2009 acknowledging the compromise and the receiving of a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- as full and final settlement. Counsel for the State of Punjab states that in view of settlement between the parties, the State would not stand in the way of the settlement and would not oppose the quashing of the FIR. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and counsel for the State of Punjab and perused the record. A perusal of the facts of the present case reveals that, petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 have arrived at a bonafide settlement. In view of the compromise, the complainant and his witnesses are not likely to support the prosecution case. To permit prosecution to carry on would, in my opinion, be an exercise in futility and a wastage of public money and valuable Court time. It is a fit case, where this Court in the exercise of jurisdiction, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., should put an end to these futile criminal proceedings. It is no doubt true that the offences complained of, are non-compoundable. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with a similar controversy, in B.S.Joshi and others V. State of Haryana and another, 2003(2) RCR(Criminal) 888, has held that in cases arising from a matrimonial disputes, where parties have settled their dispute, by a bonafide settlement, the High Court in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Would be justified in quashing proceedings emanating from matrimonial disputes. Consequently, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the present case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR No. 88, dated 17.10.2007, registered under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Shahpur Kandi, District Gurdaspur, as also consequential proceedings are quashed. [RAJIVE BHALLA] JDUGE 18th March, 2009 SKaushik 2