PARVEEN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No. 23 dated 2.2.2007, under Sections 498-A, 406/ 34 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Hansi, District Hisar, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) The aforesaid FIR has been got registered on the statement of respondent no. 3- Sudesh against the petitioners. Petitioner no. 1 is her husband, petitioners no. 2 and 3 are father-inlaw and mother-in-law of the complainant. Now the parties have compromised the matter vide Annexure P-2 and sought quashing of the FIR on that basis.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the dispute between the parties has been compromised with the intervention of the well-wishers and keeping in view the fact that parties could resettle afresh in life. Compromise- deed has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that marriage between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 3 has been Criminal Misc. No. M-3075 of 2011 (2) dissolved and a decree of divorce by mutual consent has been passed by this court today in FAO No. M-281 of 2009 Parveen Kumar vs Sudesh. He further submitted that once all the disputes between the parties have been settled as per compromise, the FIR deserves to be quashed. Reliance has been placed upon a five Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh versus State of Punjab, 2007 3 LawHerald(P&H) 2225.