1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 6378-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 2.12.2008 *** Bhupinder Singh & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Union Territory Chandigarh & Anr. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR. Present:- Mr. Kasturi Lal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Nirbhay Garg, Advocate for Mr. D.D. Sharma, Advocate for UT. Mr. R.D. Sehgal, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Through the instant petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No. 412 dated 20.10.2005, registered under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and under Sections 406, 498-A IPC at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh. Petitioner No.1 is the husband while petitioners No.2 to 6 are the in-laws and other relations of respondent No.2 Kiranjit Kaur, who got registered the impugned FIR against them. It has been contended that due to temperamental differences between the complainant-respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1, who married each other on 24.11.2002, they could not make adjustments with each other and consequently their strained relations culminated into registration of the impugned FIR against the petitioners, at the instance of respondent No.2. During the course of hearing, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the parties have mutually resolved the dispute and the married couple have parted their ways with the passing of a decree of divorce by way of mutual consent of the parties by the learned District Judge, Chandigarh on 1.9.2007. On the strength of statement made by 2 respondent No.2 before the learned District Judge, Chandigarh at the time of proceedings in the aforesaid petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, it has been contended that all the disputes and claims, past, present and future, were settled between the married couple and the complainant gave her statement before the Court regarding withdrawal of all the pending litigation against petitioner No.1, therefore, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed as a consequence of the aforesaid settlement. In the reply filed on behalf of the complainant, although the quashing of the impugned FIR has not been opposed, but it has been contended that the settlement was made in respect of dowry articles, custody of child and expenses of marriage as well as maintenance and alimony of the complainant, but not in respect of the maintenance of the child, whose custody is with the complainant and without affecting the decision of the proceedings pending under Section 125 Cr.P.C., initiated at the instance of baby child against petitioner No.1, the impugned FIR can be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also not seriously disputed to this proposition. In view of the discussion above, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned FIR and consequent proceedings taken therein, to the extent of petitioners, are quashed. However, it is made clear that nothing discussed hereinabove shall have any bearing affect on the pending proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in respect of maintenance of baby child Khushi. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE December 2, 2008 Jiten