Dharam Paul Arora vs State of Punjab

Amar Dutt, J.—Through this petition, the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 205 dated 20.10.2000 under Sections 406 and 498A IPC registered in Police Station Division No. 6, Jalandhar. The FIR was lodged against them at the behest of respondent No. 3 with whom Yog Ranian Arora was married. It contained the allegations of harassment on account of dowry as also refusal to relurn the same when asked for by the complainant. According to the petitioners, a written compromise was entered into between the parties. According to the compromise, petitioners No. 1 and 2 have paid on their behalf and on behalf of their son Yog Ratnan Arora a sum of Rs. 8 lacs being Rs. 3 lacs on ac-coun! of marriage expenses and the value of the dowry articles either damaged or in unusable condition and Rs. 5 lacs as maintenance and future maintenance for respondent No. 3 during her life time vide demand draft No. 954096 dated 31.10.2000 drawn on State Bank of Travancore, Karol Bagh, New Delhi payable at the State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Market, Jalandliar. Parties had also agreed that the marriage between respondent No. 3 and Yog Raman Arora would be dissolved and FIR No. 205 be quashed. An ex parte decree for dissolution of marriage has been obtained by respondent No, 3 against Yog Raman Arora. Hence this petition.

On behalf of respondent No. 3, Shri P.K. Jain, Advocate put in appearance on the first date of hearing in response to the noiiee issued on 13.11.2000. Statements of the parties have been recorded in which they have reiterated the assertions made in this petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

The marriage between Yog Raman Arora and respondents No. 3 has already been dissolved. The parties have sorted out the differences that existed between them and also settled the dispute regarding the grant of future maintenance. In this view of the matter, there is no possibility of any witness deposing in support of the assertions order in the FIR. As no dispute subsists between the parties, the larger interest of justice requires that they be not forced to face the criminal trial in which the case of the prosecution is not likely to be supported by the complainant and allowed to go about their lives in a normal way.

For the reasons recorded above this petition is allowed and the aforesaid FIR along-with consequential proceedings thereto is quashed.

Petition allowed.