Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 25 March, 2026
REEMA SAINI
2026.03.26 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-6284 of 2023(O&M) -2-
and crossed the house of her uncle-in-law Captain Jodh Singh, Angrej Singh
armed with Sword, Amrik Singh ared with acid bottle, Hardeep Singh @
Deepa, Jaswinder Singh armed with rifel, Mukhtiar Singh armed with stick
and Ghulla were standing. Jaswinder Singh raised lalkara that she should not
be allowed to go scot free, upon which Angrej Singh gave a sword blow with
the intention to kill her but she avoided the blow with her arm. Then, Ghulla
gave a stick blow on her hip making her fall on the ground, Angrej Singh
tied her feet by removing scarf from his head, Mukhtiar Singh tied her hands
with the same scarf, then putting his scarf around her neck, Amrit Singh
poured acid in her mouth. Then, they took her to the tubewell, where Angrej
Singh and Ghulla caught her from her arms and legs, Amrik Singh tried to
suffocate her by tightening the scarf around her neck, Mukhtiar Singh gave
her stick blows while she was lying upside down. Amrik Singh gave fist
blow on her right eye, dragged her by putting scarf around her neck.
Jaswinder Singh broke the sting of her salwar, Angrej Singh fondled her
breast, Mukhtiar Singh proclaimed that everyone should rape her. When she
raised alarm, her father, reached the spot and witnessed the incident,
followed by her sister Kanwaljit Kaur and her husband Sawinder Singh.
When she raised cries, those persons ran away from the spot with their
weapons. The cause of dispute was maintenance awarded to her by the Court
and balance amount of Rs.1,59,000/-, which was not being paid. Angrej
Singh along with his companions tried to kill her and insulted her. She was
admitted in hospital at Tarn Taran.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1
was married with respondent No.2. There was litigation between the two on
account of strained relations. Apart from FIR No.161 dated 25.10.2016, two REEMA SAINI 2026.03.26 14:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-6284 of 2023(O&M) -3- other FIRs including one under Section 376 IPC and two other under Sections 354, 354-A IPC were got registered by respondent No.2 to harass petitioner No.1, his family members and relatives. In all the FIRs, accused were acquitted on merits. Thereafter, respondent No.2 entered into a compromise with the petitioner No.1 and a settlement was reached. Petitioner No.1 had agreed to pay Rs.21,37,000/- as permanent alimony and respondent No.2 agreed to get the FIR quashed. It was also agreed that marriage would be dissolved by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Accordingly, petition for divorce by mutual consent was filed. Entire amount settled was paid to respondent No.2 and the petition seeking mutual divorce was allowed. The marriage was dissolved by decree dated 22.03.2022. Thereafter, a petition for quashing of FIR by way of compromise was filed but respondent No.2 backed out of the compromise. The petition was accordingly withdrawn on 21.04.2022. The subject FIR was registered on false allegations only to harass the petitioner No.1 and his family members. Relying upon Krishan Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another, RCR (Crl.) 2020 (4) 327, Ruchi Aggarwal Versus Amit Kumar Aggarwal RCR (Crl.) 2004(4) 949 and Shlok Bhardwaj Versus Runika 2014 (5) Law Herald (SC) 4128, learned counsel submitted that FIR be quashed and petitioners be saved from unnecessarily harassment and victimization at the hands of respondent No.2.
Learned State counsel has filed status report submitting that case was registered on complaint of respondent No.2 and during course of investigation on receipt of X-ray report, offence under Section 326 IPC was added. Accused were arrested while petitioner No.2 and petitioner No.4 were declared innocent. Challan had been presented in the Court and charges were REEMA SAINI 2026.03.26 14:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-6284 of 2023(O&M) -4- framed. 7 out of 9 witnesses had been examined. Prayer was made for dismissal of the petition on the ground that case was at the fag end.
Respondent No.2 initially did not put in appearance despite service. However, she appeared in person today and stated that decision of the Court would be acceptable to her. She did not dispute her statement dated 21.09.2021 recorded by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, during the course of proceedings in the divorce case under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnised on 07.12.2002 according to Sikh rites and ceremonies. Out of the wedlock, two children were born. The husband and wife were engaged in hostile litigation against each other and decided to reconcile their differences and get the marriage dissolved by mutual consent. Petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed by the husband and wife on 21.09.2021. On the same day, following statement was made by respondent No.2 before learned Principal Judge, Family Court:
'As agreed upon between us, a sum of Rs. 21,37,000/- has been settled as maintenance to me by the petitioner no. 1 Angej Singh as well as our two minor children as present and future alimony. Today in the court the settled amount Rs. 21,37,000/-has been received by me from the petitioner no. 1 Angej Singh by way of demand draft no. 708663 dated 15.09.2021 for sum of Rs.8,27,500/- & no. 116442 dated 19.09.2021 for sum of Rs. 13,10,000/-. Further as agreed upon between us, I have no objection if the FIR no. 242 dated 2014 u/s 324/323/506 IPC PS Sadar, Tarn Taran and FIR no.
161/2016, U/s 326/354/323/506/148/149 IPC of PS Sadar Tarn Taran are quashed/cancelled by the Hon'ble High Court. I undertakes to appear and suffered statement before Hon'ble High Court as well as before other competent court for get REEMA SAINI 2026.03.26 14:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-6284 of 2023(O&M) -5- cancelled the above said FIR's case and for quashing its proceedings in favour of petitioner no. 1 Angrej Singh. I have returned the original educational documents and photo copy of passport to petitioner no.1, Angrej Singh.
Further as agreed upon between us, we shall not claim anything in the matter of inheritance, maintenance or share from the property i.e. moveable and immovable against each other. Further as agreed upon between us, we can re- marry at any where and no one can obstruct or object it in any manner after bassing decree under section 13-B of the HMA. Further as agreed upon between us, we will not file any criminal case as well as civil case against each other. Copy of my adhar card is Ex. P2. In view, thereof our marriage may be dissolved accordingly by way of mutual consent.' The terms of the compromise arrived at on 21.09.2021 have not been disputed by respondent No.2 who is present in Court today. In pursuance of the compromise/agreement, a sum of Rs.21,37,000/- was received by respondent No.2 from petitioner No.1 by way of two demand drafts. Respondent No.2 undertook to get FIR No. 161 dated 25.10.2026 quashed from this Court. Thereafter, the parties again put in appearance before learned Family Court on 21.03.2022 and reiterated their first statement praying for divorce by mutual consent. On that basis, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Tarn Taran, allowed the petition and dissolved the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 22.03.2022. After passing of decree of divorce, petitioner No.1 filed CRM-M-41945 of 2021 for quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise, however, respondent No.2 backed out from the compromise whereupon the petition was withdrawn on 21.04.2022. REEMA SAINI 2026.03.26 14:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-6284 of 2023(O&M) -6- Petitioner No.1 has honoured the compromise and has duly paid a sum of Rs.21,37,000/- to respondent No.2 on the date of first motion statement itself. Respondent No.2 for the reasons best known to her neither appeared in the previously instituted petition for quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise nor appeared in this Court. Today, she states that she would abide by the decision of this Court. Respondent No.2 having received all the fruits of the compromise, failed to abide by the terms thereof, requiring her to cooperate with petitioner No.1 in quashing of FIR against the petitioners.
Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal and Ors. 2004 (4) RCR (Criminal) 949, is a case on identical set of facts. In that case, a compromise was arrived at between the husband and wife in the divorce petition before the Family Court at Nanital and a compromise deed was also filed in that Court. Terms of the compromise were that the wife would be returned the entire Stree Dhan and paid maintenance in lump sum. On this condition, it was agreed that the divorce by way of mutual consent under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, would be granted. As a part of the compromise, it was agreed that the wife would withdraw the complaint case under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the case under Section 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and the case under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Before the Family Court could pass an order on the basis of the compromise, the wife wrote a letter to the Family Court, resiling therefrom, alleging that she did not receive the agreed amount. Later on, however, she changed her stance and made statement before the learned Family Court that she wanted a divorce and there was no dispute regarding the amount. She also withdrew the letter written by her to the Court earlier. On that basis, the Family Court REEMA SAINI 2026.03.26 14:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-6284 of 2023(O&M) -7- passed decree of divorce by mutual consent. The wife withdrew the case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. but took no steps to withdraw the case under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The husband approached the High Court for quashing the criminal proceedings. The quashing petition was allowed, not on the basis of the compromise, but on the ground that the trial Court in Nanital, Rampur District had acted beyond its territorial jurisdiction in entertaining the complaint of the wife. In the appeal filed by the wife, the judgment of the High Court was affirmed and the criminal proceedings against the husband were quashed on the basis of compromise. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus:
"We are of the opinion that the appellant having received the relief she wanted without contest on the basis of the terms of the compromise, we cannot now accept the argument of learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, the conduct of the appellant indicates that the criminal complaint from which this appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the respondents."
Similarly in Mohd. Shamim Vs. Nahid Begum AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 757, respondent No. 1-wife informed the Court in 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings that she did not wish to compromise the matter and wanted to continue with the complaint, notwithstanding the fact that in her presence, a statement to the contrary had been recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, in the proceedings in that Court. This Court accordingly dismissed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hon'ble Supreme Court reversed the decision, concluding that the settlement arrived at with the intervention of a REEMA SAINI Judicial Officer of the rank of Additional Sessions Judge, ought not to be 2026.03.26 14:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-6284 of 2023(O&M) -8- doubted and that the denial of execution of the compromise deed by respondent No. 1-wife was clearly an afterthought. It was observed that having accepted the sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- pursuant to the compromise, the wife could have at least filed an application in the same Court, returning the sum already accepted, if indeed she was serious in resiling from the compromise. The appeal was allowed and the criminal proceedings were quashed.
In Purshotam Gupta and Ors. Vs. State and Another, 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 564, the divorce petition filed by the husband against the wife was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurugram. During pendency of the appeal, the parties settled their dispute and the petition of the husband under Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was converted into a petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce by way of mutual consent. Statements of the parties were recorded, wherein the wife conceded having accepted a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- vide two cheques from the husband, as full and final settlement of the claim as well for maintenance of the child. She also stated that should would have no objection for quashing of the criminal proceedings in the case under Sections 498-A, 406 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. She further made a statement to withdraw the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. On the same day, this Court disposed of the appeal and granted divorce on mutual consent of the parties. On a later date, the husband paid the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the wife by way of cheques, which were encashed.
REEMA SAINI 2026.03.26 14:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-6284 of 2023(O&M) -9- Though the wife was expected to join the husband, in filing the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR, she refused to do so. She also failed to appear in the quashing petition and chose to remain absent. This Court following the two decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Ruchi Agarwal's case (supra) and Mohd. Shamim's case (supra) quashed the pending criminal proceedings against the petition.
In view of the compromise/mutual agreement, which is not disputed, statement made by respondent No. 2 before learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Tarn Taran, on 21.09.2021, subsequent conduct resiling from the terms of settlement and the judicial pronouncements discussed hereinabove, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the husband would be an abuse of the process of the Court. It appears that the only object of respondent No. 2 is to harass the petitioners. Such a course cannot be furthered by the Court.
Accordingly, FIR No. 161 dated 25.10.2026 under Sections 324,323,354,506,148,149 IPC, Police Station Sadar, Tarn Taran and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.
All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)
JUDGE
25.03.2026
reema
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
REEMA SAINI
2026.03.26 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh