IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-6871 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: August 29, 2011 Amardeep Singh and another …..Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.Vinay Kataria, Advocate for the petitioner s Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab Mr.Sunil Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.4 .. RAJAN GUPTA, J.: (Oral) The petitioners have filed this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.94 dated 22.9.2008 (Annexure P-1) registered under sections 406,498- A,120-B IPC and sections 65,66,67 of the Information & Technology Act, 2000 at police station Sudhar, District Ludhiana together with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P- 2). Learned counsel for the parties submit that during the pendency of this petition a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and dispute has been amicably settled. They submit that respondent No.4 is present in court today and has been duly identified by her counsel Mr.Sunil Kumar. They have produced affidavit of Ravinder Kaur @ Kiran (respondent No.4) which is taken on Crl.Misc.No.M-6871 of 2011 - 2 - record as Mark ‘A’ admitting therein the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties. It has further been stated in the affidavit that respondent No.4 has no objection if the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel respondent No.4 submit that in view of compromise, the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel for the State submits that in view of compromise the State will not stand in the way of quashing of the FIR in question. It appears that while issuing notice of motion a direction was issued by this court to record the statements of the parties with regard to validity or otherwise of the compromise. A report has been received from the trial court. Operative part thereof reads thus: “4. On the basis of the statements so suffered by both the parties, this court is satisfied about the voluntariness of the compromise Mark-X and as per statement of complainant as well as of both the accused, except the present case and a petition under section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act pending between the complainant as well as Amardeep Singh, in the court of Sh. Parmjit Singh, Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana for 25.8.2011 for recording statements of parties in the Second Motion, no other case is pending between them” The compromise is in the interest of parties and after the matter has been resolved by an amicable settlement, no useful purpose is likely to be served by 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-6871 of 2011 - 3 - continuance of the criminal proceedings. In view of above, the present FIR and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed in light of Full Bench judgment of this court in Kulwinder Singh & others vs. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. The FIR in question and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. August 29, 2011 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE 3