Punjab-Haryana High Court
Deepak Kumar And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 20 September, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CRM No.M-11003 of 2013 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(237)
CRM No.M-11003 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 20.09.2013.
Deepak Kumar and another
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. H.P.S. Ishar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Deep Singh, AAG, Punjab.
None for respondent No.2.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1860 seeking quashing of the FIR No.60 dated 10.09.2012 under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') registered at Police Station Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Mohali, Punjab and all the subsequent arising therefrom in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that parties had amicably settled their dispute as petitioner No.1 and Sandeep Sethi 2013.09.24 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No.M-11003 of 2013 (O&M) -2- respondent No.2 had got a decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent. In the divorce proceedings, respondent No.2 had made a statement that the parties had amicably settled their dispute and she would appear before this Court to make a statement regarding quashing of the FIR in question.
Certified copies of the judgment/decree dated 13.08.2013 passed in a petition filed by petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 along with the statements of the parties have been placed on record.
Respondent No.2 had made a statement in the divorce proceedings on 14.01.2013 as under:-
"Stated that my marriage with petitioner Deepak Sharma was solemnized on 4.12.2011 according to Hindu Rites. After the marriage we cohabited together as husband and wife at Pinjore. Soon after the marriage some difference had cropped up between us and it became difficult for us to live together. So far as the matter regarding dowry articles and permanent alimony are concerned, the same have amicably been settled. I have already received back my dowry articles. The petitioner Deepak Sharma has agreed to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- to me as my permanent alimony. I have received Rs. 75000/- from him today vide demand draft No. 339377 dated 29.12.2012 drawn at State Bank of Sandeep Sethi 2013.09.24 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No.M-11003 of 2013 (O&M) -3- India Chandigarh. The remaining amount will be paid by him to me at the time of second motion. Our marriage may be dissolved by a decree of divorce."
On 07.08.2013, respondent No.2 had made the following statement in the divorce proceedings:-
"Stated that during the pendency of this petition we have not been able to live together and have come present to make second motion. Now we have mutually agreed to get our marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce. So far as the matter regarding dowry articles and permanent alimony are concerned the same have amicably been settled. I have already received back my dowry articles. The petitioner Deepak Sharma has agreed to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- to me as my permanent alimony. I have already received Rs. 75000/- and remaining amount of Rs. 75000/- has been received by me today in the court from petitioner Deepak Sharma by way of demand draft No. 082614 dated 5.8.2013 drawn at State Bank of India Pinjore. Now nothing is due against petitioner Deepak Sharma I undertake appear before the Hon'ble High Court on the next date of hearing to make statement regarding quashment of F.IR. already lodged by me against the petitioner Deepak Sharma and his family members. Our marriage may be dissolved by a Sandeep Sethi 2013.09.24 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No.M-11003 of 2013 (O&M) -4- decree of divorce."
On the basis of the statements of the parties, the Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 13.08.2013 had held as under:-
"I have heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as the parties in person. I am satisfied that the parties have agreed to dissolve their marriage by way of mutual consent. They cannot live together due to different temperaments and nature. Their marriage was solemnized on 4.12.2011 at Nayagaon, S.A.S Nagar Mohali as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Thereafter, they cohabited as wife and husband and performed marital obligations. But no child was born out this wedlock. The petitioners are living separate for the last more than one year prior to the filing of the petition. Period of more than six months has expired since the filing of this petition. Petitioner No. 2 has already received Rs. 1.5 lacs as permanent alimony from petitioner No.1 as settled between them."
Therefore, this petition is allowed and decree is passed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act dissolving marriage of the petitioners by way of mutual consent. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The Sandeep Sethi 2013.09.24 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No.M-11003 of 2013 (O&M) -5- file be consigned to the record room."
Thus, from the statements made by the parties, in divorce proceedings, it is evident that parties had amicably settled all their matrimonial disputes. Respondent No.2 had received Rs.1,50,000/- from the petitioner No.1 towards permanent alimony. Respondent No.2 had also stated that she had received her dowry articles. In fact, respondent No.2 had also undertaken to appear before this Court for making a statement regarding quashing of the FIR in question. However, today none has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 despite service. The fact remains that parties have amicably settled their dispute with a view to move on in life.
As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.
It has been held by the Apex Court in 'Ruchika Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal, 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 949' as under:-
"Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, however, contended that though the appellant had signed the compromise deed with the above-mentioned terms in Sandeep Sethi 2013.09.24 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No.M-11003 of 2013 (O&M) -6- it, the same was obtained by the respondent-husband and his family under threat and coercion and in fact she did not receive lump sum maintenance and her Stridhan properties, we find it extremely difficult to accept this argument in the background of the fact that pursuant to the compromise deed the respondent-husband has given her a consent divorce which she wanted thus had performed his part of the obligation under the compromise deed. Even the appellant partially performed her part of the obligations by withdrawing her criminal complaint filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is true that she had made a complaint in writing to the Family Court where Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings were pending that the compromise deed was filed under coercion but she withdrew the same and gave a statement before the said court affirming the terms of the compromise which statement was recorded by the Family Court and the proceedings were dropped and a divorce was obtained. Therefore, 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 the learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, the conduct of the appellant indicates that the criminal complaint from which this Sandeep Sethi 2013.09.24 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No.M-11003 of 2013 (O&M) -7- appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the respondents."
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the parties have already settled their matrimonial dispute and respondent respondent No.2 has already received permanent alimony and her dowry articles, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.60 dated 10.09.2012 under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC registered at Police Station Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Mohali, Punjab and all the subsequent arising therefrom are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE September 20, 2013.
sandeep sethi Sandeep Sethi 2013.09.24 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document