Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 22 April, 2026
CRM-M-34439-2024 -1-
137+274
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-34439-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 22.04.2026
RAVINDER
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL
Present: Mr. Abhinav Sood, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. N.P. Chandel, AAG, Haryana.
***
SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J.
CRM-15611-2026 Application under Section 528 BNSS/482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for placing on record true copy of joint statement of 1st motion of petitioner and respondent No.2/complainant dated 21.12.2023 as Annexure P5, true copy of joint statement of 2nd motion statement dated 15.07.2024 as Annexure P6 and decree of divorce by way of mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, as Annexure P7. Application is allowed and Annexures P5, P6 and P7 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
CRM-M-34439-2024 (O&M)
1. Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 0088 dated 12.07.2019 under Sections 323, 354-A, 377, 406, 498-A, 506, 34 Indian Penal Code, Women Police Station, Ballabgarh, Tehsil and District Faridabad and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated SUMIT SINGLA 2026.04.23 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34439-2024 (O&M) -2- 21.12.2023/04.07.2024. Sections 354-A, 377 and 34 IPC were deleted from the FIR during investigation.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aforementioned FIR was registered against the petitioner on account of a matrimonial discord. However, the matter was amicably resolved and the parties decided to part ways. A petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce by mutual consent was filed in the Family Court at Faridabad and a decree of divorce by mutual consent had been passed. All other disputes were also resolved between the parties. As per compromise deed on record as Annexure P3, respondent No.2 had agreed to make statement before the competent Court of law for quashing of the FIR. In the petition for mutual divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, the petitioner paid up Rs.5 lacs towards permanent alimony, maintenance allowance for past, present and future and istridhan etc. Rs.3 lacs was paid in cash at the time of first motion statement, Rs.2 lacs was paid on the second motion statement besides an FDR of Rs.2 lacs in the name of the minor child was given. Though, the petitioner complied with the terms of the compromise, respondent No.2 failed to abide. She did not appear before the Court to make statement. The only object of respondent No.2 was to harass the petitioner and prosecution of the petitioner, despite full and final settlement would be an abuse of the process of law. It was thus, prayed that the petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed.
3. In support of his arguments, learned counsel refers to Surjit Singh and Others Vs. U.T. Chandigarh and Another 2024(4) RCR(Criminal) 732.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for quashing of SUMIT SINGLA 2026.04.23 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34439-2024 (O&M) -3- the FIR on the ground that the allegations in the FIR prima facie disclosed commission of cognizable offences and urged that the criminal proceedings could not be terminated at initial stage on the ground that respondent No.2 failed to abide by the terms of the settlement.
5. Annexure P3 is the copy of compromise deed which has been placed on record by the petitioner. The operative part of the compromise deed reads as under:
"That during this period good sense has prevailed upon both the parties and in order to keep the harmony and peace in the society with the intervention of respectables and relatives, both the parties without any pressure and inducement have decided to resolve their dispute amicably in order to bring harmony and peace between themselves on the following terms:-
I. That, both the parties have embraced each other and have forgotted their enmity and differences and have decided to live peacefully.
II. That both the parties shall not file any complaint or any case against each other in any court of law or any authority in future either themselves or through someone else. III. That the first party will give statement before the competent court of law for quashing of the FIR. IV. That the first party has no objection if the present case/ FIR is quashed/ cancelled and is ready to make their statements in favour of the second party for cancellation/ quashing of the same either before the hon'ble high court or before any competent court of law.SUMIT SINGLA
2026.04.23 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-34439-2024 (O&M) -4-
V. That in the FIR the father-in-law and mother-in-law of
the first party was also named but while filing the challan they were exonerated by the investigating agency and thus now the case before the Ld. Trial Court is pending against the second party only."
6. The veracity of the compromise deed cannot be doubted in view of statements of the parties recorded in the petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act at first motion and second motion stage. Relevant portion of the statements dated 21.12.2023 and 15.07.2024, Annexures P5 and P6 respectively are reproduced as under:-
"...All disputes between us have been settled for a sum of 5,00,000/- towards permanent alimony, maintenance allowance for past, present and future and Istridhan etc., out of which petitioner No.1 has paid 3,00,000/- cash to the petitioner no.2 today (out of which petitioner no.2 makes F.D. amounting to 2,00,000/- in the name of minor child Manyata and will show the FDR at the time of second motion). Petitioner no.1 has also received 1,00,000/- in cash for herself. Remaining amount of 2,00,000/- shall be paid by the petitioner no.1 to petitioner no.2 at the time of second motion. That the custody of the girl child namely Manyata would remain with petitioner no.2 and the petitioner no.1 will have no visitation rights to meet his child. That the petitioner no.1 has refund the gift items presented by the parents of the petitioner no.2 which has been duly received by the petitioner. No.2 The petitioner no.2 shall not raise any demand for any maintenance, istridhan, gifts etc. or shall not SUMIT SINGLA 2026.04.23 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34439-2024 (O&M) -5- claim any property or alimony from the petitioner no.1 in any manner. It is settled between us that we shall withdraw all the cases pending against each other on or before second motion. It is also settled that we shall not file any type of case either civil or criminal against each other in future. We have no other claim whatsoever against each other. Our joint statement is free from any pressure, coercion or influence from any corner. We shall be bound by our statement and the contents of our joint petition filed under Section 13-B of HMA...."
".....All disputes between us have been settled for a sum of 5,00,000/- towards permanent alimony, maintenance allowance for past. present and future and Istridhan etc., out of which petitioner No.1 had paid 3,00,000/- cash to the petitioner no.2 at the time of first motion. Copy of F.D.R amounting to 2,00,000/- in the name of minor child Manyata has been placed on record. Remaining amount of 2,00,000/- has been paid by the petitioner no.1 to petitioner no.2 in cash today i.e. 15.07.2024 at the time of second motion. That the custody of the girl child namely Manyata would remain with petitioner no.2 and the petitioner no.l will have no visitation rights to meet his child. That the petitioner no.1 has refund the gift items presented by the parents of the petitioner no.2 which has been duly received by the petitioner No.2 The petitioner no.2 shall not raise any demand for any maintenance, istridhan, girts etc. or shall not claim any property or alimony from the petitioner SUMIT SINGLA 2026.04.23 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34439-2024 (O&M) -6- no.1 in any manner. No other matter is pending between us. It is also settled that we shall not file any type of case either civil or criminal against each other in future.
We have no other claim whatsoever against each other. Even after the period of six months. there is no change in the circumstances and we have decided to get our marriage dissolved by way of decree of divorce. Our joint statement is free from any pressure, coercion or influence from any corner. We shall be bound by our statement and the contents of our joint petition filed under Section 13-B of HMA. ...."
7. Despite the petitioner having honoured the terms of the compromise/settlement and respondent No.2 having reaped monetary benefits under the settlement, she is not coming forward to show cause why the petition be not granted. Having received all the fruits under the compromise arrived at between the parties in the petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, respondent No.2 has failed to perform her part of the obligation requiring her to cooperate with the petitioner for quashing of the FIR against him.
8. 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 SUMIT SINGLA 2026.04.23 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34439-2024 (O&M) -7- 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 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 SUMIT SINGLA complaint from which this appeal arises was filed by the wife 2026.04.23 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34439-2024 (O&M) -8- only to harass the respondents."
9. 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 Judicial Officer of the rank of Additional Sessions Judge, ought not to be 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.
10. 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 SUMIT SINGLA 2026.04.23 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34439-2024 (O&M) -9- 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.
11. 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.
12. In Surjit Singh and Others Vs. U.T. Chandigarh and Another (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court culled out the following principles in a case on similar facts.
1. (i) In an FIR, arising from matrimonial related dispute, where the complainant/wife has reaped the benefits of a compromise/settlement & nothing more is required to be done by the accused-side/husband then such FIR (as also proceedings emanating therefrom) deserves to be quashed.
(ii) In a case of above kind; the complainant/wife may, but SUMIT SINGLA 2026.04.23 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34439-2024 (O&M) -10- of-course, raise plea(s) that such compromise/settlement was a result of fraud/coercion/duress etc. However, such plea(s) ought to be substantiated by tangible material and merely bald assertion in that regard would not suffice. Furthermore, before allowing the wife to raise such a plea(s), the Court may also consider directing the complainant/wife to return the financial benefit(s) received in pursuance of such compromise/settlement. II In a case where the accused side/husband has undertaken some steps, in terms of as also in furtherance, of the compromise/settlement & such accused are willing to undertake all further/remaining act(s), as required in terms of such compromise/settlement; the High Court will be well within its jurisdiction, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. of 1973, to favorably consider such quashing petition upon the further/remaining act(s) being so undertaken by the accused side/husband. III. No comprehensive/exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid-down in this regard as every case has its own unique factual conceptus. Needless to state that the High Court may exercise its intrinsic powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. of 1973 as called for in the facts/circumstance of a particular case. "
13. In view of compromise/mutual agreement Annexure P3 and statements on first and second motion made by respondent No.2 before learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, subsequent conduct of respondent No.2 resiling from the terms of the settlement and the judicial SUMIT SINGLA 2026.04.23 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34439-2024 (O&M) -11- pronouncement discussed hereinabove, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be abuse of the process of the Court. It is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS to quash the criminal proceedings.
14. The petition is allowed. FIR No. 0088 dated 12.07.2019 under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506, Indian Penal Code, Women Police Station, Ballabgarh, Tehsil and District Faridabad and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioner.
15. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)
22.04.2026 JUDGE
Sumit Singla
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
SUMIT SINGLA
2026.04.23 18:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document