Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajesh Kumar And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 5 March, 2012
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
CRM NO.M-10639 of 2011 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM NO.M-10639-2011 (O&M)
DECIDED ON : March 5, 2012
Rajesh Kumar and others .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ........Respondents
CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present:- Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. J.S.Sandhu, Asstt. A.G, Punjab.
Ms. Amandeep Soni, Advocate, for respondent no.2.
*****
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI,J This is a petition for quashing of FIR No. 23 dated 13.02.2009, under Sections 498A and 406, IPC, registered at Police Station Division No. 3, Jalandhar, on the basis of compromise dated 16.12.2010 (Annexure P2).
The brief facts of the case are that marriage of respondent no.2, Smt. Hema, was solemanized on 18.11.2005 with Rajesh, petitioner no.1. Out of the said wedlock, a female child was born. Thereafter, the differences arose between the parties and the husband and wife started living separately w.e.f 10.04.2008. On the basis of the complaint filed by respondent no.2, Smt. Hema, resident of Jalandhar, the impugned FIR was registered against Rajesh son of Yograj (husband), Yograj (father-in-law) and Veena (mother-in-law), CRM NO.M-10639 of 2011 (O&M) 2 all residents of village Bandala, Tehsil and District Una, Himanchal Pradesh. The said case arising out of the above FIR is pending adjudication before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar. Respondent no.2, Smt. Hema, had also filed an application under Section 125, Cr. P.C seeking maintenance from her husband, Rajesh Gagga, who had also filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before learned District Judge, Una, Himanchal Pradesh, seeking divorce, in which Smt. Hema was proceeded against exparte.
Owing to intervention of the relatives and friends, better sense prevailed amongst both the factions and they compromised the matter on the following terms and conditions:-
1. That the first party will withdraw all the cases filed by her against the second party and will not file any other litigation civil or criminal against the second party.
2. That the second party will pay Rs.2,50,000/- )(Rupees Two Lacs Fifty Thousands) to first party through demand draft in lieu of future maintenance as well as future maintenance of minor Aarti, both Hema as well as minor Aarti shall not claim any future maintenance from second party. The first draft bearing No. 575392 of PNB Behdala, Una of Rs.1,25,000/- will be given by the second party to the first party today and the second draft bearing No. 575393 of PNB Behdala, Una of Rs.1,25,000/- will be given at the time of order of petition under Section 13 of H.M.Act which is pending before District Judge, Una(HP).
If the District Judge, Una, dismissed the petition under Section 13 of H.M.Act, then both the parties will file petition under Section 13-B of H.M.Act and the second draft bearing No.575393 of PNB Behdala, Una of CRM NO.M-10639 of 2011 (O&M) 3 Rs.1,25,000/- will be given at the time of final statement of both the parties before the Court under Section 13-B of H.M.Act.
3. That on 16.12.2010 i.e today the divorce under Section 13 of H.M.Act is at the stage of argument and the Hon'ble District Judge will pronounce the order of divorce. Both the parties shall follow that divorce order.
4. That a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C will be filed by the second party before Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh for quashing of FIR No.23 dated 13.02.2009, under Sections 406, 498A, IPC at Police Station Divn. No.3, Jalandhar and the first party will make available herself before Hon'ble High Court for making statement regarding compromise as and when called by Hon'ble High Court.
5. That both the parties will not start or file any litigation in any Court of law in future and first party will not claim any maintenance or any right in the property of second party in future.
6. That the daughter of Hema and Rajesh Gagga i.e minor Aarti shall reside with her mother i.e first party and the second party shall not claim the custody of the minor Aarti in future.
7. That both the parties will abide by the terms and conditions of this compromise deed and in case of any breach of the terms and conditions of this compromise deed the guilty party will be liable to face legal proceedings.
In view of the compromise, the petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act was filed before learned District Judge, Una and the same was allowed vide order dated 18.12.2010 (Annexure P3). In para no.2 of the said order, it is mentioned that:- CRM NO.M-10639 of 2011 (O&M) 4
"The petitioner no.1/husband has agreed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards permanent alimony to the respondent as well as his daughter Aarti and has paid a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- Vide DD No. 575392, dated 15.12.2010 which the respondent has acknowledged in her deposition. Accordingly, the petitioners have prayed that the marriage between them be dissolved by divorce on mutual consent. After such depositions by the petitioners and hearing the learned counsel to the considered opinion of the Court it can safely be said that the marriage between the petitioners has irretrievably broken down..........."
During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners apprise this Court that application under Section 125, Cr.P.C filed by respondent no.2, Smt. Hema, was also withdrawn by her in view of the compromise dated 16.12.2010. The said fact has not been denied by the learned counsel for respondent no.2.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a valid compromise had been effected between the parties and as a sequel thereto, petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a decree of divorce by mutual consent was presented before learned District Judge, Una, Himanchal Pradesh. The statements of petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 (here in this petition) were recorded and thereafter a decree of divorce was passed. Learned counsel further submits that respondent no.2 also withdrew the application filed by her under Section 125, Cr.P.C for grant of maintenance. He further submits that Clause-1 of the compromise- deed would reveal that the first party, i.e Smt. Hema, CRM NO.M-10639 of 2011 (O&M) 5 would withdraw all the cases filed by her against the second party, i.e Rajesh Gagga and others, and would not file any other litigation civil or criminal against second party. He also submits that according to Clause-2, the petitioner had to pay Rs.2,50,000/- to Smt. Hema by way of demand draft in lieu of future maintenance for her as well as for her minor daughter, namely, Aarti, and the said amount was paid during the pendency of the proceedings before learned District Judge, Una. He also pointed out that Clause-4 of the compromise deed would reveal that a petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C would be filed by Rajesh Gagga etc. before this Court for quashing of the impugned FIR and Smt. Hema would make herself available before this Court for making statement regarding compromise as and when directed by this Court. He further pointed out that Clause-7 of the compromise-deed would bind both the parties to the terms and conditions of the compromise and in case of any breach, the guilty party had been made liable to face legal proceedings.
On the strength of above terms and conditions of the compromise, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent no.2 has now become dishonest and had not come to the Court with clean hands, and hence, prays for quashing of the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that Smt. Hema had effected compromise only for the purpose of seeking divorce and withdrawal of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. She further submits that respondent no.2 has never consented for quashing of the impugned CRM NO.M-10639 of 2011 (O&M) 6 FIR and therefore, she prays for dismissal of the present petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.
The factum of compromise is very much clear from the contents of compromise-deed (Annexuire P2). In Clause-1, it has specifically been mentioned that Smt. Hema (first party) would withdraw all the cases filed by her against Rajesh Gagga etc.(second party). In Clause-2, there is reference with regad to payment of Rs.2,50,000/- by Rajesh Gagga to Smt. Hema. Clause-4 of the compromise deed would clinch the matter when it speaks about the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to be filed by Rajesh Gagga etc. before this Court for quashing the impugned FIR. The said Clause also contains that Smt. Hema (first party) would make herself available before this Court for making statement with regard to the compromise. Perusal of Clause-7 would transpire that parties to the compromise shall abide by the terms and conditions made therein and breach of the same would make the defaulting party liable to face legal proceedings.
No doubt, respondent no.2, Smt. Hema, has now denied the factum of compromise, so far as the present litigation is concerned, but the Courts are not helpless. Smt. Hema has already charged Rs.2,50,000/- from the petitioners side, sought a decree of divorce and also withdrew the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which unambiguously go to prove that the compromise (Annexure P2) was voluntarily executed by her and CRM NO.M-10639 of 2011 (O&M) 7 now she has become dishonest, so far as the proceedings in hand are concerned. In Ruchi Aggarwal v. Amit Kumar Aggarwal ,2004 (4)RCR(CRl.) 949, Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar situation quashed the criminal proceedings pending against the husband etc. Similarly in Ram Lal and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2008(2) RCR(Crl.) 823, this court had also quashed the criminal proceedings against the husband etc. even after the complainant backed out from the compromise.
In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also by relying upon the law laid down in the cases of Ruchi Aggarwal and Ramlal (supra), the present petition is allowed and FIR No.23 dated 13.02.2009, under Sections 498A and 406, IPC, registered at Police Station Division No.3, Jalandhar, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
March 5,2012 (NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) mamta JUDGE