S.S. Saron, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Section 482, CrP.C. has been fileclseeking quashing of FIR 200 dated 11.10.2004 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station, Model Town, Ludhiana, for the offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 307, IPC. The quashing is sought on the basis of mutual consent/compromise deed dated 2.4.2007 (Annexure P2).
(2.) THE marriage between Jasbir Singh (petitioner -1) and Smt. Harvinder Kaur (respondent -2) was solemnized on 18.11.2001 as per Sikh rites and ceremonies at Phagwara. Out of the wedlock, one male child namely Bismajit Singh was born on 29.12.2003. Matrimonial disputes arose between Jasbir Singh and Smt. Harvinder Kaur and FIR 200 dated 11.10.2004 (Annexure PI) was registered on the complaint of Harvinder Kaur (respondent -2). The Police investigated the case and filed challan for the offences under Sections 498A and 406, IPC. Challan for the offence under Section 307, IPC was not filed. The charge in the case was framed by the learned trial Magistrate on 9.3.2007 and now the case is pending trial for 9.8.2007 in the Court of Mr. AS Sullar, JMIC, Ludhiana. Now, with the intervention of respectables, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties which is recorded in the form of a compromise deed dated 2.4.2007. Respondent -2 has received back all her dowry articles, Istridhan including jewellery from the petitioners. An affidavit has been filed by Smt. Harvinder Kaur in Court today which is to the effect that the matter has been compromised and the petitioners have deposited the maintenance amount of Rs 14.00 lakh with the mediator. Out of this, half of the amount is to be paid to her on the quashing of the present FIR and the remaining half at the time of decree for divorce. Respondent -2 is present in Court. She has been identified by her Counsel. The learned Counsel, on instructions from respondent -2, has submitted that half the amount has been received and the remaining half amount would be received at the time of passing the decree for divorce which is pending. It is also stated that respondent -2 has no objection to the quashing of the FIR and that she has not been under any kind of pressure or undue influence for quashing the FIR.
(3.) IN view of the settlement that has been arrived at between the parties, it is stated by learned Counsel for the petitioners and respondent -2 that the FIR may be quashed. Learned Counsel for the State submits that in view of the fact that the matrimonial dispute has been amicably settled between the parties, the State would have no objection to the quashing of the FIR in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana I, (2003) DMC 524 (SC) :, 11 (2003) CCR 57 (SC) :, 2003 SCC 848.;