Punjab-Haryana High Court
Atul And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 18 February, 2014
Author: Rekha Mittal
Bench: Rekha Mittal
CRM-M-21449 of 2013 1
IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-21449 of 2013
Date of decision : 18.02.2014
Atul and others
... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL
Present: Mr.Rakesh Nehra, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr.Anupam Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
REKHA MITTAL, J.(ORAL)
The petitioners have filed the petition seeking quashing of FIR No.3 dated 05.01.2012 registered in Women Police Station, District Sonepat for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC').
Respondent No.2 (complainant) failed to appear to contest the petition.
Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the marriage of petitioner Atul with Sheetal respondent was performed on 26.03.2011. Due to marital discord between the husband and wife, Sheetal lodged the aforesaid FIR against her husband and his family members. The matter was settled by way of compromise (Annexure P2) and in view of the compromise, Atul and Sheetal filed a petition for divorce by way of mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, which has been Davinder Kumar 2014.02.25 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21449 of 2013 2 allowed by the learned trial Court vide judgment passed on 26.10.2013. The complainant, in pursuance of the compromise effected between the parties, has already received an amount of `12 lacs in view of her statement recorded in the matrimonial proceedings on 26.10.2013. It is argued with vehemence that as Atul petitioner has already complied with the terms and conditions of the compromise and filed a joint petition for dissolution of marriage by way of decree of divorce and paid an amount of `12 lacs to satisfy the claim of the complainant towards dowry, istridhan, maintenance, permanent alimony etc., continuation of criminal proceedings initiated at the behest of the respondent are nothing but an abuse and misuse of process of law. It is further argued that as per the compromise effected between the parties, the complainant agreed to withdraw cases filed by her and make a statement in favour of first party i.e. Atul in criminal case FIR No.3 dated 05.01.2012 under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506, 34 IPC, Women Police Station, District Sonepat. The last submission made by counsel is that in view of the affidavit filed by petitioner Atul, the petitioner or his family members have not filed any criminal or civil case against the complainant or her family members nor they will initiate any litigation against them in future regarding the present dispute.
Counsel for the State is not in a position to controvert the plea of the petitioners that the dispute between the parties was settled by way of compromise.
I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the case file.
At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that respondent No.2 did not respond to the notice of the proceedings and, therefore, there is no Davinder Kumar 2014.02.25 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21449 of 2013 3 counter to the allegations of the petition that the dispute between the parties was settled by way of compromise.
A relevant extract from the compromise (Annexure P2) reads as follows:-
"That both the parties are involved in court cases in this regard. The second party had lodged a FIR No.3 dated 05.01.2012 u/s 498A, 406, 506, 323, 34 IPC at P.S. Women, Sonepat against the first party and his other family members.
The parties has now filed a joint petition for dissolution of marriage by way of decree of divorce u/s 13-B(1) of Hindu Marriage Act and in that petition it was decided by the parties that the first party will pay an amount of Rs.12 lacs for lump sum settlement to the second party and after that the second party will not claim any type of maintenance alimony in future from the first party. In lieu of that settlement the first party made payment an amount of Rs.12 lacs to the second party on first motion and nothing is due towards the first party. Now the parties also arrived in a compromise to withdraw their all cases whatever filed by the parties, which are pending before the various courts at Sonepat.
That now with the intervention of the Local Panchayat and brotherhood a compromise has been effected that now both the parties will not claim anything from each other and all litigations will be settled by way of withdrawing their respective cases.
That it is settled that the second party will cooperate the first party by way of withdrawing her cases and making the statement in favour of the first party in criminal case i.e. FIR No.3 dated 05.01.2012 u/s 498A, 406, 506, 323, 34 IPC P.S. Women, Sonepat.Davinder Kumar 2014.02.25 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21449 of 2013 4
That both the parties would undertake not to initiate any proceedings in future against each other or the family members with regard to this marriage. Therefore, this compromise has been written down with on healthy, free and sound mind and without any pressure, coercion or threat from any and with own consent so that the same be read in their evidence in any court of Law."
Atul has filed additional affidavit, which is taken on record. As per averments set out in the affidavit, Atul and Sheetal filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which culminated in the judgment dated 26.10.2013 passed by the District Judge, Family Court, Sonepat. In the said proceedings, a joint statement of Sheetal and Atul in second motion was recorded on 26.10.2013. A relevant extract thereof reads as follows:-
"Our marriage was solemnized on 26.03.2011 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage was consummated, but no issue was born out of this wedlock. Due to temperamental differences, we could not live together and have decided to take divorce by way of mutual consent. We have been residing separately from each other since 21.11.2011. We have already made statement regarding this on 23.04.2013. Now we again stick to our earlier statement dated 23.04.2013 and have decided to take divorce by way of mutual consent. Our marriage has irretrievably broken down. There are no chances of our re-union. Nothing is due against each other towards dowry, Istridhan, Maintenance, permanent alimony etc. According to the settlement, petitioner No.1 had already received a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- from petitioner No.2 before filing of the present petition and Davinder Kumar 2014.02.25 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21449 of 2013 5 she received a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- from petitioner No.2 at the time of first motion and as such, she received a total sum of Rs.12,00,000/- from petitioner No.2. The petitioner No.1 shall not claim anything from petitioner No.2 in any manner including any right in his property. Hence our marriage may kindly be dissolved by way of mutual consent."
As per the aforesaid statement, Sheetal has admitted in unequivocal words that nothing is due against petitioner Atul towards dowry, istridhan, maintenance, permanent alimony etc. and she has already received a sum of `3,50,000/- before filing of the petition and another amount of `8,50,000/- at the time of first motion and in this manner, she received a total amount of `12 lacs from petitioner No.2 i.e. Atul. The joint petition filed by the petitioner and respondent and payment of `12 lacs by petitioner No.1 to the respondent is in consonance with the terms and conditions of the compromise (Annexure P2). Once the petitioner has discharged his obligation in view of the terms and conditions settled between the parties by way of compromise (Annexure P2) and the respondent, for the reasons best known, has not come forward to make a statement raising no objection if the criminal proceedings initiated at her behest against her husband and his family members are ordered to be quashed, the respondent (complainant) cannot be allowed to take advantage of her omission and misuse the process of the Court. In this context, reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agarwal, 2004(4) RCR (Criminal)
949. Paras 7 & 8 of the judgment reads as follows:-
"7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Davinder Kumar however, contended that though the appellant had signed 2014.02.25 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21449 of 2013 6 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 indicates that the criminal complaint from which this appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the respondents.
8. 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 Davinder Kumar also quash proceedings arising from the Criminal Case 2014.02.25 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21449 of 2013 7 No.Cr.No.224/2003 registered in Police Station, Bilaspur, (Distt.Rampur) filed under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the respondents herein. It is ordered accordingly. The appeal is disposed of."
When the facts and circumstances of the present case are examined in the light of observations made in the quoted authority, I am of the considered opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners on the basis of FIR No.3 dated 05.01.2012 registered in Women Police Station, District Sonepat is nothing but abuse of process of the Court. In this view of the matter, the aforesaid FIR for offence under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506, 34 IPC and proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed.
(REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE February 18, 2014.
Davinder Kumar Davinder Kumar 2014.02.25 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document