Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Kalra And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 6 August, 2012
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl. Misc. No. M- 33356 of 2010 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M- 33356 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 06.08.2012
Sandeep Kalra and another ........Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another ........Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
None for respondent No.2.
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' in short) for quashing the FIR No.259 dated 29.08.2009, under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), Police Station SGM Nagar, Faridabad (Annexure P-1) and consequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise dated 09.09.2010 (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.
On the basis of compromise effected between the parties, notice of the petition was issued to respondent No.2 but respondent No.2 failed to put in appearance despite service.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the compromise was duly effected between the parites. As per the compromise, the parties had agreed to withdraw all civil as well as Crl. Misc. No. M- 33356 of 2010 (O&M) 2 criminal litigations pending against each other. In terms of the said compromise, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 had filed petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act' in short), seeking divorce on the basis of mutual consent. The said petition was decreed by the Family Court vide judgment of decree dated 23.03.2011.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ruchi Aggarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Aggarwal, 2004(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 949, wherein it was 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M- 33356 of 2010 (O&M) 3 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 appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the respondents.
In view of the above said subsequent events and the conduct of the appellant, it would be an abuse of the process of the court if the criminal proceedings from which this appeal arises is allowed to continue. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion to do complete justice, we should while dismissing this appeal also quash proceedings arising from the Criminal Case No.Cr.No.224/2003 registered in Police Station, Bilaspur, (Distt.Rampur) filed under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the respondents herein. It is ordered accordingly. "
Learned State counsel on the other hand opposed the petition.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed.
Marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 09.0.5.2007. However, no child was born out of their wed lock. It appears that there was some matrimonial dispute between them which resulted in to lodging of the FIR in question against the petitioners by respondent No.2. In petition filed by petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 under Section 13-B of the Act, statements of the parties were recorded.
A perusal of the judgment passed in the said petition (Annexure P-4) reveals that the parties had averred that their marriage had broken down irretrievably and they had decided to dissolve their marriage by way of mutual consent. With regard to dowry and permanent alimony, the Crl. Misc. No. M- 33356 of 2010 (O&M) 4 husband would pay `2,75,000/- to the wife towards full and final settlement. They would withdraw all civil as well as criminal litigation pending against each other. Thereafter, the statements of the parties were recorded and decree of the divorce on the basis of mutual consent was passed by the Family Court on 23.03.2011.
Earlier, petitioner No.1 had filed a criminal miscellaneous No.M- 36846 of 2009 seeking quashing of the FIR. In the said petition, the matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre. There the parties arrived at compromise. The order dated 16.09.2010 passed by the Mediator (Annexure P-3) reads as under:
" Present: Both the parties in person alongwith their respective Advocate.
As per the settlement arrived at between the parties on 09.09.2010, the petitioner-husband has brought a draft of `75,000/- bearing No.189397 dated 14.09.2010 in the name of respondent No.2-wife and the same has been handed-over to her. Further, a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has also been produced by the petitioner husband which has been read over by the respondent No.2-wife along with her counsel, Sh. Sharad Aggarwal. Both the parties have signed the petition under Section 13-B along with the affidavits and power of attorney. The parties have further agreed to present the petition under Section 13-B before the competent Court of jurisdiction at Gurgaon on 21.09.2010 where the husband-petitioner shall pay another sum of `1 lac by way of demand draft to respondent No.2 wife in compliance of the settlement arrived at on 09.09.2010.
Sd/- Sandeep Kalra. (Petitioner No.1) Crl. Misc. No. M- 33356 of 2010 (O&M) 5 Sd/- Sh. Rakesh Dhiman, Adv for the Petitioner. Sd/- Harsha Sd/- Sh. Sharad Aggarwal, advocate for Sh. Lokesh Singhal, Adv for respondent No.2.
In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the acse file is sent back to the Hon'ble bench."
Thereafter the said petition was got dismissed as withdrawn and the present petition seeking quashing of the FIR in question on the basis of compromise was filed.
Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 has put in appearance before mediator. From the judgment (Annexure P-4), it is evident that the all disputes between the parties had been amicably settled.
In these circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings on the basis of the FIR in question against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The FIR No.259 dated 29.08.2009 under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 I.P.C., Police Station SGM Nagar, Faridabad, and consequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.
(SABINA)
August 06, 2012 JUDGE
Sarita