@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.@mdashThe present petition u/s 482, Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioners, Mukesh Kumar Saini (husband), Mahindro Devi (mother-in-law) and Narinder Kumar (brother-in-law/Jeth) of respondent No. 2-Deepa Rani (wife of petitioner No. 1) for quashing of FIR No. 160 dated 09.04.2013, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 406, 420, 498A and 506, IPC, registered at Police Station Baldev Nagar, Ambala City.
2. On 10.07.2014, during the course of hearing of the case, better sense prevailed and both the private factions, due to intervention of their respective counsel, sorted out their matrimonial dispute and effected a compromise. As detailed in the order dated 10.07.2014, the petitioners agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 8,75,000/-, in total, to respondent No. 2-complainant. As agreed between the parties, a demand draft of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been handed over to respondent No. 2 today in the Court. A photostat copy of the same has been retained on the file. In accordance with the compromise, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have agreed to present a joint petition u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce before learned District Judge, Ambala. At the time of first motion, the petitioner shall pay Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of demand draft to respondent No. 2 and at the time of second motion further an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- shall be paid to respondent No. 2 by way of another demand draft by the petitioners.
3. Today, respondent No. 2-complainant has suffered her statement on oath before this Court that in view of the settlement arrived at on 10.07.2014, she has no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. She also stated that she would withdraw the application filed u/s 125, Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance from her husband.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, Ms. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate, has also admitted the factum of compromise and has no objection if the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
5. Learned counsel for the State has also heard the statement suffered by respondent No. 2-complainant and, as such, he too has no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.
6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent No. 2-complainant have agreed that the divorce petition u/s 13-B of the Act shall be presented before the learned District Judge, Ambala, on 04.08.2014.
7. In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking into consideration the ratio of the judgment delivered by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the matter of
