CHANDIGARH CASE NO: CRM No.M-37780 of 2011 Date of Decision: February 29 & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI Present: Mr.S.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.B.S.Saini, Sr.DAG, Haryana. Mr.Ajay Kaushik, Advocate for the respondent-complainant. NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.(ORAL) Learned State counsel has filed reply on behalf of respondent No.1 and the same is taken on record. This is a petition for quashing of FIR No.166 dated

29.06.2011, under Section 406, 312, 323 read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station City Tohana, and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties had effected the compromise before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court vide Annexure P-2 on 02.09.2011. He further submits that in view of the compromise Annexure P-2, the judgment Annexure P-3 was passed by the Division Bench of this Court whereby respondent-wife had withdrawn the appeal. The said appeal was filed against the decree of divorce passed in favour of CRM No.M-37780 of 2011 2 petitioner No.1 by the District Judge, Bhiwani. Now, the petitioners and the respondent-complainant are residing separately. He further submits that in view of the compromise only Rs.1,00,000/- is to be paid to the respondent-complainant. He further submits that today in Court he is handing over a bank draft number 730934 dated

24.11.2011 drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Tosham, to respondent No.2. Complainant-respondent No.2, who is present in Court along with her counsel has accepted the draft. Mr.Ajay Kaushik, learned counsel for the complainant, states that all the terms and conditions of the compromise have been executed, therefore, his client has no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are quashed. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from SI Jai Singh, Police Station, City Tohana, admits the factum of the compromise and has no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. Heard. This litigation has arisen out of a matrimonial dispute which has amicably been settled and the affected parties have arrived at a compromise before Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. The terms of the compromise have been described in the compromise deed, which is annexed with this petition as Annexure P-

In view of the compromise, respondent No.2-complainant has withdrawn her appeal whereby she had challenged the decree of divorce passed by learned District Judge, Bhiwani. As a consequence thereof, the husband and wife are living separately with CRM No.M-37780 of 2011 3 each other. All the conditions of compromise have been executed. Now, there is no ill-will amongst them. The pendency of the trial before the learned trial Court would be a sheer abuse of the process of law since the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak. Keeping in view the factum of compromise and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in B.S.Joshi and others V. State of Haryana and another, 2003(2) RCR (Crl.) 888, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 166 dated 29.06.2011, under Section 406, 312, 323 read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station, City Tohana and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed. February 29, 2012 Vgulati (NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE