CRM-M-13874-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 292 CRM-M-13874-2025 Date of decision : 26.05.2025 Rohit Garg and Anr. ...... Petitioners V/S State of Punjab and Anr. ..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present: Mr. Rhythem Bajaj, Advocate for petitioners. Ms. Amrit Kaur Mahir, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Piyush Setia, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** AMARJOT BHATTI J. (ORAL) 1. Petitioners- Rohit Garg and Ramesh Garg @ Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal have filed instant petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of FIR No.26 dated 02.02.2023, registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 506 of IPC 1860 and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, at Police Station City-1 Abohar, District Fazilka (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioners, in light of the compromise effected between the parties dated 05.09.2024 (Annexure P-2). 2. As per facts of the case, complainant Shalika Mittal filed written complaint against her husband Rohit Garg and others alleging that her marriage was performed with Rohit Garg on 20.06.2014 with great pomp and show. Prior to this, Roka ceremony took place in which her parents had given Shagun and other gifts. After few days of engagement ceremony, her in-laws family increased their demand from Rs.10 Lacs to Rs.20 Lacs. Thereafter, tikka ceremony took place and on that day Rs.7 Lacs were entrusted to her father-in- Sunil Devi 2025.05.28 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13874-2025 -2- law Ramesh Garg. Marriage ceremony took place on 20.06.2014. Her parents had given additional amount of Rs.15 Lacs under the pressure of their community. She has narrated the dowry articles given in the marriage as detailed in the FIR. Despite all this, her husband and in-laws family were unhappy and they misappropriated all her dowry articles. She gave birth to two children. She was continuously harassed in the matrimonial home. She has narrated various incidents which took place during her stay in the matrimonial home. Panchayats were also convened to settle the dispute. They were unable to satisfy their illegal demands. Finally, she filed the complaint levelling allegations of harassment on account of demand of dowry and misappropriation of her istridhan. 3. Petitioners filed this petition for quashing of aforesaid FIR on the basis of compromise. Vide order dated 19.03.2025, petitioners and respondent No.2 were directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements on the basis of compromise. Detailed report regarding compromise has been received from the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Abohar dated 06.05.2025. Statement of respondent No.2 has been recorded where she confirmed the compromise with petitioners. She confirmed that this compromise has been effected voluntarily and without any coercion and undue influence and she has no objection regarding quashing of FIR. 4. Petitioners- Rohit Garg and Ramesh Garg @ Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal also confirmed this fact in their separate statements. Statement of ASI Rajbir Singh is also recorded who confirmed that petitioners are not involved or declared as proclaimed offenders in any other criminal case. 5. Therefore, from the report of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Abohar, it is clear that compromise has been effected between the parties without Sunil Devi 2025.05.28 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13874-2025 -3- any pressure, coercion or undue influence. They have mutually settled all their claims arisen from matrimonial dispute. They have decided to part ways by filing joint petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act. Matter has been settled in Rs.45,00,000/-. Thereafter, they will be able to live independently in peace and harmony. No purpose would be served with the continuation of criminal proceedings. 6. Gainful reference can be made to the judgment of Larger Bench of Five Judges of this High Court cited in 2007(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1052 tilted as Kulwinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr., where it was explained that ‘there can never be any hard and fast category which can be prescribed to enable the court to exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The only principle that can be laid down is the one which has been incorporated in the section itself i.e. to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.’ 7. Therefore, by relying upon the ratio of the aforesaid judgment, no purpose would be served with the continuation of criminal proceedings. Considering these facts, the petition filed by the petitioners is accepted and FIR No.26 dated 02.02.2023, registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 506 of IPC 1860 and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, at Police Station City-1 Abohar, District Fazilka (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua petitioners. (AMARJOT BHATTI ) JUDGE 26.05.2025. Sunil Devi Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No Sunil Devi 2025.05.28 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document