Crl.Misc.No.M-1566 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No. M-1566 of 2009 Date of Decision: 17 - 2 - 2009 Pawan Kumar and others .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and another .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate for Mr.Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.A.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab. Mr.Bikram Singh Dhillon, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Counsel for the petitioners has made a prayer that wrongly in the heading of the prayer clause offence has been written as Sections 468-A, 406, 323 IPC. He state that on his oral prayer, same be read as offence under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC. Office is directed to carry out necessary correction in the prayer clause of the petition. The present petition has been filed by Pawan Kumar, his father and mother, brother and Neeru @ Neeraj sister of Pawan Kumar. They have sought quashing of FIR No.68 dated 28.2.2003 registered at Police Station Crl.Misc.No.M-1566 of 2009 [2] Kotwali, Barnala under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC on basis of compromise Annexure P2. In the present case FIR was lodged by Anjali wife of Pawan Kumar daughter of Shri Faqir Chand. It is stated that Anjali was married with Pawan Kumar on 10.3.2002 as per religious rites. She has stated that she was harassed by her husband and other family members as they were demanding dowry. During the pendency of the proceedings, an agreement has been arrived at between the parties that they have compromised and it was agreed that Rs.13 lacs shall be paid by Pawan Kumar to his estranged wife Anjali. Complainant Anjali - respondent No.2 is present in Court. She has been identified by her counsel Mr.Bikram Singh Dhillon. Anjali has stated that she has received the entire amount. It has been agreed that Rs.10 lacs will be given earlier and Rs.3 lacs after the decision of cases. She stated that she has also received that amount. Counsel for the State has objected to the quashing of FIR on the ground that in the present case statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have been recorded and case is fixed for defence evidence. He has further stated that an application has been filed by Anjali complainant before the trial Court placing on record the compromise. Therefore, it has been contended that since trial Court is seized of the matter, this Court should not interfere. Counsel for the petitioners contend that offence under Section 498-A IPC is a non compoundable offence and trial Court will not be in a position to compound the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Function of the State and the Court is to promote amity, Crl.Misc.No.M-1566 of 2009 [3] harmony and cordial relations between the parties. If two parties to the marriage have parted gracefully, the State cannot cause hurdle. This is what is the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana, 2003(2) RCR (Criminal) 888 and further followed by a Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 wherein it has been held that if a matrimonial dispute has been resolved, no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the criminal proceedings. Therefore, the present petition is accepted. The impugned FIR along with all subsequent proceedings is quashed. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) February 17, 2008. JUDGE RC