Daya Chaudhary, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 24 dated 29.1.2005 under Sections 406/498A Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Sadar, District Jalandhar on the basis of compromise annexed as Annexure P -2 with the petition.
(2.) NOTICE of motion was issued on 13th May, 2010. In response to notice of motion, replies on behalf of official Respondents as well as private respondents have been filed which are on record. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners at the very outset submits that he wants to withdraw the present petition qua petitioner No. 2 at this stage and also submits that the present petition be treated to have been filed on behalf of the remaining petitioners, namely, Assa Ram, Harbans Kaur, Ranjit Kumar , Bimla and Joginder Pal. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also submits that in view of the compromise effected between the parties, against an amount of Rs.8,00,000/ - an amount of Rs.4,00,000/ - has been paid by way of Bank Draft No. 174043 dated 2.2.2011 and the same has been handed over to learned Counsel for the complainant in the Court which has further been handed over to the complainant who is also present in the Court. Even on the asking of the Court, the complainant has stated that the compromise has been effected and she has no objection in quashing of the FIR. The complainant has also stated that name of her father has wrongly been mentioned as Kirpal Chand instead of Gurpal Chand in the draft and if any objection is raised by the Bank at the time of en -cashment of the said draft, the petitioners would give new draft and the learned Counsel for the petitioners has given an undertaking that in case of any objection by the bank, new draft would be given. A photocopy of the said draft has been submitted in the Court and the same is placed on record. As per terms and conditions of the compromise, both the parties would withdraw their cases registered against each other and no fresh case would be registered in future except petition for divorce with mutual consent. The divorce petition shall be filed before the competent Court of law and all dowry articles would be given to the complainant. The complainant is satisfied with the compromise and she has no objection in quashing of the said FIR qua the petitioners, except Mohan Lal husband (petitioner No. 2) who is residing in Italy and this petition was filed through Power of Attorney. Learned Counsel for the petitioners have opted to withdraw the petition qua husband of the complainant at this stage as he is away to Italy.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that continuation of impugned criminal proceedings between the parties would be an exercise in futility. The complainant herself does not want to pursue these proceedings and it shall be merely a formality and sheer wastage of precious time of the Court as complainant would not support the case of prosecution in view of compromise between the parties. It would be in the interest of the parties as well as in the large interest of the society and to maintain peace and harmony and in order to save both the families from avoidable litigation that the compromise arrived at between them is accepted by this Court.;