JUDGMENT L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral):- Surinder Singh and three others have filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No.54 dated 15.3.2005, under Sections 406/498-A/313/316 IPC of Police Station Sadar Ludhiana (Annexure P-l), in view of compromise effected between the parties. 2. The FIR was lodged by Shavinder Kaur-respondent No.2. In her reply, respondent No.2 has admitted that compromise has been effected between the parties and, therefore, she has no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. She has also admitted the affidavits sworn by her as well as by her father which have also been placed on record. According to compromise, petitioners were to pay Rs. 22 lacs to complainant-respondent No.2. Out of it, Rs.11 lacs have since been paid and marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 has since been dissolved. The remaining amount of Rs. 11 lacs is to be paid at the time of quashing of the impugned FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioners has today paid the balance amount of Rs.11 lacs by way of three bank drafts to learned counsel for respondent No.2 in the Court itself. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2, on instructions from respondent No.2 who is also present in the Court, submits that the impugned FIR may be quashed. 3. In appropriate cases, FIR can be quashed on the basis of compromise by exercising power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, even if the offences are not compoundable. It has been so pronounced by five Judges Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007(3) Law Herald (Punjab & Haryana) 2225. 4. Ordinarily in matrimonial disputes, FIR is quashed on the basis of compromise. In the instant case, however, serious offences under Sections 313 and 316 IPC are involved. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, placed reliance on Raj Kumar Tully & others v. State of Punjab & others, 2004(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 213, wherein FIR under Section 313 IPC, besides other offences, was also quashed on the basis of the compromise. However, in that case, the complainant and her husband had started residing together in pursuance of the compromise whereas in the instant case, the complainant and her husband have separated by a decree of divorce in pursuance of compromise. However, in that case, the complainant and her husband had started residing together in pursuance of the compromise whereas in the instant case, the complainant and her husband have separated by a decree of divorce in pursuance of compromise. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2, however, states that if the FIR is not quashed, respondent No.2 would not be able to get the remaining amount of Rs.11 lacs which has been paid today by way of three bank drafts by the petitioners and in this manner, complainant would suffer great prejudice. 5. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the ends of justice would be met if the impugned FIR is quashed. The parties have arrived at settlement and if the FIR is not quashed, both the parties would suffer. On the other hand, continuation of criminal proceedings in pursuance of impugned FIR would be an exercise in futility, in view of compromise between the parties. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is allowed and impugned FIR No. 54 dated 15.3.2005, under Sections 406/498-A/313/316 IPC of Police Station Sadar Ludhiana (Annexure P-1), is quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. ———————