Crl. Misc. No. M-35600 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-35600 of 2011 Date of Decision : December 20, 2011 Ranjit Singh and others .... Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. S. S. Majithia, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. A. G., Punjab for respondent no. 1. Mr. Munish Raj, Advocate for respondent no. 2. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Ranjit Singh and his parents Randhir Singh and Lakhvir Kaur have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) for quashing FIR No.110 dated 15.06.2009 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Sadar, District Ludhiana, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) effected with complainant-respondent no.2 Crl. Misc. No. M-35600 of 2011 2 Gurpreet Kaur. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Reply affidavit of respondent no.2, filed today in Court, is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. It has been stated in the reply affidavit that parties have effected compromise Annexure P-2, and therefore, respondent no.2-complainant has no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. Counsel for respondent no.2, on instructions from respondent no.2, who is also stated to be present in person in the Court, also makes similar statement. In appropriate cases, FIR can be quashed by this Court on the basis of compromise by exercising inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are not compoundable. It has been so held by a Full Bench of this Court in case of Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported as 2007 (3) Law Herald (Punjab and Haryana) 2225. In the instant case, impugned FIR is result of matrimonial dispute between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2. The said dispute has been amicably settled. They have already filed joint petition for divorce by mutual consent. Petitioners have already paid Rs.1,00,000/- to respondent no.2 and would pay the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to her at the time of second motion in petition for divorce by mutual consent. Claim of respondent no.2 has thus been satisfied. Being FIR arising out of Crl. Misc. No. M-35600 of 2011 3 matrimonial dispute, which has been amicably settled, it is a fit case in which the FIR should be quashed. In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is allowed and impugned FIR No.110 dated 15.06.2009 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Ludhiana is quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. December 20, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE