DHARAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF U T

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Petitioners-Dharam Singh, Narinderpal Kaur and Maninder Singh Ahluwalia, have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court, for quashing FIR No. 216 dated 23.10.2008 registered at Police Station Sector 31, Chandigarh, under Sections 406 and 498A IPC, on the basis of the compromise. It has been averred in the petition that the marriage of respondent No.2, who got lodged the said FIR, was performed with Maninder Singh Ahluwalia-petitioner No.3, son of the other petitioners. After lodging of the FIR, with the intervention of the respectable persons, friends and relatives, a compromise was entered between them and the matter was amicably settled. In view of that settlement, the marriage of respondent No.2 and petitioner No.3 was got dissolved by way of mutual consent. It was in furtherance of order dated 2.3.2010 passed in FAO No. M-309 of 2009 that the husband and the wife were directed to appear before the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, and it was thereafter the decree of mutual divorce was passed. After the compromise, no issue remained unsettled between the parties and the FIR is liable to be quashed. This FIR and the subsequent proceedings are liable to be quashed, in view of the observations made by this court in the above said order dated 2.3.2010, the relevant portion of which is re-produced hereunder:-

(2.) As far as FIR No. 216 dated 23.10.2008 got registered by the appellant under Sections 406/498-A IPC at Police Station Sector 31, Chandigarh against his husband and his family members is concerned, as fairly stated by the appellant in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties, she will have no objection to the quashing thereof on the basis of compromise. The statement got recorded by her in the present proceedings shall be sufficient and be read as her statement in those proceedings in a fresh petition to be filed by the respondent and his family members seeking quashing of the aforesaid FIR, on the basis of compromise. However, the same shall be effective after the decree of divorce has been passed by way of mutual consent. The appellant shall not be required to appear in person in the court in the petition seeking quashing of the FIR.

(3.) Accordingly, this petition is hereby accepted, the FIR and the subsequent proceedings are ordered to be quashed.