Punjab-Haryana High Court
Swatantar Jain And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 3 September, 2012
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl.Misc.No.M- 35342 of 2010 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl.Misc.No.M- 35342 of 2010
Date of decision : 3.9.2012
Swatantar Jain and others
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Petitioners No.1 and 2 in person along with
Mr.S.S.Toor, Advocate.
Mr.P.S.Paul, DAG, Punjab.
Mr.Onkar Singh, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
****
SABINA, J.
By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have sought quashing of FIR No.112 dated 21.8.2010 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 406/ 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Mukerian District Hoshiarpur and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners No.1 and 2 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of respondent No.2 . Petitioner No.3 is the husband of respondent No.2. Crl.Misc.No.M- 35342 of 2010 2 Compromise was duly effected between the parties. In pursuance to the compromise, ` 5,00,000/- were paid in cash to respondent No.2. With regard to the remaining ` 5,00,000/- , a cheque was handed over to respondent No.2. However, thereafter, respondent No.2 had backed out from the compromise.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has submitted that the cheque in the sum of ` 5,00,000/- could not be encashed by respondent No.2 as the same was un-dated. Learned counsel has further submitted that a joint account had been opened by petitioner No.3 and respondent No.2 with regard to 'child tax benefit'. Petitioner No.3 had been withdrawing the said 'child tax benefit' and for repayment of the same, respondent No.2 would held liable by the Government as the payment was made vide cheques in her name but the amount was deposited in the joint account of petitioner No.3 and respondent No.2.
In reply to the said submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are ready to pay the remaining amount of ` 5,00,000/- to respondent No.2 as the earlier cheque issued by the petitioners has not been encashed by respondent No.2. Learned counsel has further submitted that the joint account has been closed and now the said account would run only in the name of petitioner No.3. He has further assured that in case any amount is deposited by the State towards 'child tax benefit', petitioner No.3 would be responsible for repayment of the same.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has handed over Crl.Misc.No.M- 35342 of 2010 3 cheque No. 091544 14101000 dated 3.9.2012 in the sum of ` 5,00,000/- to the counsel for respondent No.2 (a photocopy of the cheque has been placed on record).
Annexure P-2 is the compromise effected between the parties. Para Nos. 7 to 9 of the said compromise read as under:-
"7. That both the parties have settled all the matrimonial disputes qua the past, present and future permanent alimony, cost of Istri Dhan and cost of marriage on payment of ` Ten lacs only by party No.2 to party No.1. A sum of ` Five lacs in cash and ` Five lacs by way of banker cheque/draft (i.e. total ten lacs) along with golden ornaments shall be paid/ handed over to Sapna Jain by Shri Swatanter Jain and Vidula Jain of party No.2 on behalf of their son Vaibhav Jain in the following manner i.e. a joint petition for divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act shall be moved before the court of learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur by Sapna Jain and Shri Swatanter Jain as general attorney holder of Vaibhav Jain (his son) and on the first day of motion both the parties shall record their statement and at that time all the golden articles and ` Five lacs in cash shall be handed over to Sapna Jain party No.1 in presence of Shri Vipan Chander Pal, father of Sapna Jain who will also endorse the said statement.
8.That an amount of ` Five lacs by way of banker Crl.Misc.No.M- 35342 of 2010 4 cheque/draft shall be paid to Sapna Jain of party No.1 on the second motion of hearing i.e. after six months and in case any of the party retreats from this statement or in any manner retreats from giving divorce to each other under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act or vilates any term of this agreement then if refuses or resiles party No.1 Sapna Jain or her father will pay double the amount and the jewellery to Swatanter Jain and Vidula Jain of party No.2. In case this violation is from the side of party No.2 i.e. Swatanter Jain etc. then party No.2 shall have no right to get the money and the jewellery returned and the same shall be forfeited in favour of party No.1.
9. That after the filing of the petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act the party No.2 shall file quashment under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the honourable High Court where party No.1 will make statement to get the FIR quashed and prior to that copy of this compromise shall be produced on record before the court as well as before the police for getting bail to party No.2."
Thus, as per the above compromise, it was agreed between the parties that the petitioners would pay ` 10,00,000/- to respondent No.2 in lump sum towards her istridhan and qua past, present and future alimony and cost of marriage ceremony expenditure.
Crl.Misc.No.M- 35342 of 2010 5
Admittedly, ` 5,00,000/- have been paid to respondent No.2 by the petitioners in cash. Today in terms of the said clause, a cheque of ` 5,00,000/- has been handed over by counsel for the petitioners to the counsel for respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record copy of the certificate issued by the TD Canada Trust regarding account No.1482-6229592 and as per the said certificate, the joint account No.1482-6229592 in the name of Vaibhav Jain and Sapna Jain has now been changed to single account registered in the name of Vaibhav Jain. Learned counsel has also placed on record copy of the certificate issued by TD Canada Trust that no Child Tax Benefit was deposited in chequing account No.1482-6229592 from May 2009 to February 13, 2012. Learned counsel has also given assurance on behalf of petitioner No.3 that in case any amount is found due by the State qua 'child tax benefit' till closing of the joint account, petitioner No.3 would be responsible for repayment of the same.
Admittedly, the marriage of petitioner No.3 with respondent No.2 has been dissolved by an ex parte decree of divorce by the Court in Canada on 14.2.2011. Presently, petitioner No.3 is residing in Canada. Respondent No.2 had gone to Canada after six months of her marriage. Petitioner No.3 and respondent No.2 were blessed with a son in the year 2009 in Canada. Although now respondent No.2 is presently residing in India but during the course of arguments, it has transpired that she will return back to Crl.Misc.No.M- 35342 of 2010 6 Canada in the near future.
In view of the above situation, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would not serve any useful purpose.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.112 dated 21.8.2010 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 406/ 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Mukerian District Hoshiarpur and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.
It is clarified that in case the cheque handed over by counsel for the petitioners to counsel for respondent No.2 in the court today, is dishonoured, then respondent No.2 would be at liberty to revive this petition.
(SABINA) JUDGE September 03, 2012 anita