Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hardev Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 15 May, 2012
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
Crl. Misc. No. M-15125 of 2011 (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-15125 of 2011
DATE OF DECISION: 15.05.2012
Hardev Singh ..........Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ..........Respondents
BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr. H.S. Dhandi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
None for respondent No.2.
****
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of petitioner, namely, Hardev Singh for quashing of FIR No. 331 dated 12.12.2003 registered under Sections 406,498-A,494 IPC at Police Station City Rajpura, District Patiala on the basis of compromise effected between the parties on 26.11.2010, which is annexed as Annexure P-3 with the petition.
Notice of motion was issued on 17.5.2011 and respondent No.2 has also been served but inspite of service none has appeared on her behalf. The case has been adjourned on various dates but neither respondent No.2 herself has appeared nor she has been represented by any lawyer.
Crl. Misc. No. M-15125 of 2011 (2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per terms and conditions of the compromise, an amount of ` 3,00,000/- by way of bank draft was paid to the complainant as permanent alimony, dowry articles were also returned and a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act was also filed. Learned counsel further contends that the petition filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has been allowed and divorce on mutual basis has already been granted. Learned counsel also contends that since the amount has already been received by complainant-respondent No.2 she is not appearing in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mohd. Shamim Vs. Smt. Nahind Begum 2005 AIR (SC) 757 and of this Court in Ravinder Kumar Kohli and others Vs. State of Punjab and another 2011 (5) RCR (Criminal) 20, wherein, FIRs have been quashed in the absence of complainant as the complainant did not come forward to make statement on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel also submits that as per terms and conditions of the compromise, petition for quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise was to be filed but now complainant-respondent No.2 is not appearing intentionally inspite of the fact that settled amount as per compromise has been received by her and divorce has also been granted.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that nothing is mentioned in the compromise with regard to Section 494 IPC and only compromise was qua to sections 406,498-A IPC.
Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents available on record.
Petitioner-Hardev Singh and complainant-Manjinder Kaur have solemnized their marriage on 21.2.1999. Subsequently a dispute arose between the parties and FIR No. 331 dated 12.12.2003 under Sections Crl. Misc. No. M-15125 of 2011 (3) 406,498-A,494 IPC was registered at Police Station City Rajpura, District Patiala. During the pendency of the proceedings a compromise was effected between the parties and certain terms and conditions were settled, which is annexed as Annexure P-3 with the petition. In the compromise it has been mentioned that petitioner had paid an amount of ` 3,00,000/- by way of bank draft No. 904411 dated 26.11.2010 as permanent alimony to complainant-respondent No.2 and in future she will not claim any maintenance or any type of expenditure from the petitioner. It is also mentioned in the compromise that at the time of marriage certain articles were given as gifts to each other and now no article remains due to either of the party. Respondent No.2 has also received her Istri Dhan from the petitioner. The petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was not to be contested and the complainant-respondent No.2 will forego her future claim of maintenance as she has received permanent alimony. A petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has also been allowed and certified copy of the order passed in that petition is also placed on record. Complainant-respondent No.2 has not appeared inspite of service and it appears that after receiving of the amount and grant of mutual divorce, she is not interested to come forward.
There is no dispute with regard to compromise and the terms and conditions of the compromise has already been complied with. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that otherwise also on merit the FIR is liable to be quashed in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in Ravinder Kumar Kohli's case (supra), as in that case also the amount settled between the parties was paid and subsequently the wife refused to withdraw the case, the FIR was quashed on this ground. Similarly in case of Mohd. Shamim's case (supra), there was settlement between both the parties and an amount of ` 2,25,000/- was paid by the husband and wife Crl. Misc. No. M-15125 of 2011 (4) backed out from the compromise, FIR was quashed by holding that continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned above and also the fact that the compromise was effected between the parties and has been complied with in true spirit and complainant-respondent No.2 is not coming forward inspite of the fact that she has received the amount and mutual divorce has also been granted, the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 331 dated 12.12.2003 registered under Sections 406,498-A,494 IPC at Police Station City Rajpura, District Patiala as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner, namely, Hardev Singh are quashed.
May 15, 2012 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE