Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jitender And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 11 December, 2012
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Criminal Misc. M No. 5919 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. M No. 5919 of 2010
Date of Decision: December 11, 2012
Jitender and Others ...........Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..........Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.Ashwani Gaur,Advocate for
Ms.D.S.Dubey,Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.Advocate General,
Haryana
None for respondents No. 2 and 3
--
Sabina, J.
Petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.PC' for short) seeking quashing of the FIR No. 15 dated 15.1.2001 registered under Sections 498-A,406, 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (`IPC' for short) at Police Station Kharkhoda District Sonepat (Annexure P1) .
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that respondent No.2 had filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.PC against petitioner No.1. Respondent No.3 had also lodged the FIR in question against the petitioners.
Criminal Misc. M No. 5919 of 2010 2
Parties had amicably settled all their disputes. Respondent No.2 had withdrawn the execution proceedings filed by her with regard to order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Respondent No.2 had stated in the said proceedings that she had arrived at a compromise with petitioner No.1 and due to this reason, the execution petition was ordered to be Dismissed as Withdrawn. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 had also filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955(`the Act' for short) seeking divorce on the basis of mutual consent. Statement of the parties were recorded on 13.2.2010 wherein the parties had made a joint statement that they had settled all their disputes. However, on the adjourned date, respondent No.2 failed to appear. Petitioners had paid `4,50,000/- to respondent No.2 towards full and final settlement of her claim qua dowry articles and permanent alimony. The matter with regard to FIR in question was taken up by the Judicial Magistrate on 11.2.2010 wherein respondent No.2 had stated that a compromise had been effected between the parties and she would move an application in this Court seeking quashing of the FIR. However, now, respondent No.2 had backed out from the said compromise after receiving `4,50,000/- from the petitioners.
None has appeared on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the State counsel, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed.
In Ruchi Aggarwal vs. Amit Kumar Aggarwal 2004(4) Criminal Misc. M No. 5919 of 2010 3 RCR (Criminal) 949, it has been held 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 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. It is true that she had made a complaint in writing to the Family Court where Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code 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 Criminal Misc. M No. 5919 of 2010 4 indicates that the criminal complaint from which this appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the respondents."
In the present case, respondent No.2 had filed an application claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. In the execution proceedings, respondent No.2 made a statement on 11.2.2010 that she had settled her dispute with her husband and did not want to pursue the execution petition. In pursuance to her said statement, the following order was passed by the Executing Court on 11.2.2010:-
"Vide separate statement recorded today, the petitioner has stated that she has received one time maintenance from the respondent Jitender and has compromised the matter with him and desired to withdraw the execution petition.
In view of the statement of the petitioner, the execution petition is dismissed as withdrawn. File be consigned to the record room."
Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Act seeking divorce on the basis of mutual consent. A copy of the petition has been placed on record as Annexure P2. Para 6 of the petition reads as under:-
"That now on 3.2.2010, in a meeting of relatives and parents of both the petitioners, they expressed their inability to rejoin each other and to carry on their wedlock any further and also arrived a conclusion that their matrimonial life be brought to an end. In that meeting the petitioners out of their freewill, without any kind of pressure from any side Criminal Misc. M No. 5919 of 2010 5 agreed to dissolve their marriage with mutual consent. The petitioner no.2 has been received of amount Rs.4,50,000/- in respect of her permanent alimony from the petitioner no.1 and further petitioners have agreed that the petitioners shall not claim anything from each other whatsoever, in nature. The petitioners will not be entitled for anything from each other after the settlement of petitioners in the Hon'ble Court."
On 13.2.2010, the following order was passed by the District Judge in the petition filed by petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 under Section 13-B of the Act:-
"Joint statement of the petitioners has been recorded. It is now adjourned to 16.8.2010 for rethinking as well as for recording second statement of the petitioners as provided under Act."
Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record a photocopy of the joint statement made by petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 in the divorce proceedings. A perusal of the same reveals that both the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 had stated that they had got married on 11.4.1997 as per Hindu rites. Now, they were residing separately since the year 1999. No child had been born out of their wedlock. Now, they had settled all their disputes.
On 11.2.2010, respondent No.2 had made the following statement before the Magistrate:-
"Stated that a compromise has been effected with the Criminal Misc. M No. 5919 of 2010 6 accused. I want to give application in the High Court for quashing the FIR, therefore, some time may be granted."
A copy of the said statement has been placed on record as Annexure P3. On the basis of the statement made by respondent No.2, the following order was passed by the Magistrate:-
"Statement of complainant as well as accused recorded. Compromise has been effected between the parties. Complainant has made statement that she wants to file application before Hon'ble High Court for quashing FIR. Heard. In view of their statement, case is adjourned to 13.3.2010 for further proceedings"
A copy of the said order has been placed on record as Annexure P4.
Thus, from the above facts, it is evident that the parties had amicably settled their dispute. Respondent No.2 had received `4,50,000/- from petitioner No.1 towards permanent alimony and had further agreed that in future,none of the parties would have any claim against each other. Respondent No.2 had also withdrawn the execution proceedings initiated by her with regard to order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the compromise. Now, however, respondent No.2 has not appeared in the Court to make a statement with regard to the compromise effected between the parties. It appears that now respondents No. 2 and 3 wants to harass the petitioners although a compromise was effected between them.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be Criminal Misc. M No. 5919 of 2010 7 nothing but an abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 15 dated 15.1.2001 registered under Sections 498-A,406, 34 IPC at Police Station Kharkhoda District Sonepat (Annexure P1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE December 11, 2012 arya