Crl. Misc.-M No.36040 of 2009 (O&M) Harjeet Singh Dhariwal v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S.Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. A.S.Cheema, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing the FIR No.25 dated 24.04.2009 under Sections 498-A/406 IPC read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, at PS SGN Dev Thermal Plant, Bathinda and subsequent proceedings therefrom. The averments are that the matter has been compromised. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also confirmed the factum of compromise. Learned state counsel is not in a position to deny this fact. Both the parties are present in Court and their statements have been recorded separately. As per compromise, Rs. 5 lacs in cash has been paid to the respondent No.2 as full and final payment towards alimony/maintenance. Consequently, in view of the fact that the allegations are not very serious and in view of the decision of this Court in Kulwinder Singh & others vs. State of Punjab, reported as 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, this compromise is accepted, and Crl. Misc.-M No.36040 of 2009 (O&M) -2- the present petition is allowed and FIR No.25 dated 24.04.2009 under Sections 498-A/406 IPC read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, at PS SGN Dev Thermal Plant, Bathinda, as also subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. CJM, Bathinda is directed to have a fixed deposit of Rs.5 lacs initially for a period of 2 years in the name of minor son in any nationalized bank. The said FDR shall be handed over to the respondent No.2, who will get it renewed till such time as the child attains majority. It is further clarified that before the child attains majority, if respondent No.2 wants to withdraw some money from the fixed deposit, she should move an application for withdrawal of money before the Guardian Court. Even though the compromise is silent on this issue yet in case the petitioner wishes to visit the minor child, he may do so in consultation and after taking the consent of the respondent No.2. Consequently, this petition is allowed. December 21, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE