Punjab-Haryana High Court
Saroj Kumari vs Union Territory on 19 July, 2010
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc. No.M-17168 of 2008
Date of decision: 19.7.2010
Saroj Kumari
......Petitioner
Vs.
Union Territory, Chandigarh and another
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY.
PRESENT: Ms.Ekta Thakur, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Tarundeep Kumar. Avocate for
Mr.Hemant Bassi,Advocate for U.T.Chandigarh.
Ms.Sumanjit Kaur, Advocate,
for complainant.
****
ORDER
The present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.160 dated 21.8.2004 under Sections 380/448/411 IPC registered at Police Station, Sector 19, Chandigarh on the basis of compromise.
Notice of motion was issued in this case on 16.7.2008. On 27.11.2008, the following order was passed:
" It is brought out that respondent No.2 is, now, backing out of the compromise, however, after accepting a sum of Rs.12 lacs in lieu of compromise.
Adjourned to 16.1.2009. Respondent No.2 is directed to be present in court on the adjourned date of hearing. SSP, Chandigarh shall ensure the presence of respondent No.2."
Crl.Misc. No.M-17168 of 2008 [2] In compliance of the order passed on 27.11.2008, respondent No.2 appeared in the Court in person and filed reply which was taken on record. While appearing in person, respondent No.2 has stated before the Court and reiterated the same statement mentioned in the reply which is as under:
"1. That he has vacated the premises i.e. H.No.96, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh on the date of signing the agreement dated 17.12.2007 (Annexure P-2) ;
2. That the petitioner herself was to withdraw the civil suit that was filed but she has not withdrawn the same.
3. That the brother-in-law of the petitioner Mr.M.P.Wasudeva, Advocate had drafted the agreement (Annexure P-2) and in fact he had not agreed to withdraw the criminal case.
4. That the signing and execution of the agreement (Annexure P-2) is, however, admitted to be correct."
In view of the statement made by learned counsel for respondent No.2, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that civil suit filed had become infructuous and the same would be withdrawn by the petitioner. The case was adjourned on various dates.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the order passed by this Court on 27.11.2008, an amount of Rs.12 lacs in cash has been accepted by respondent No.2 but he is not implementing the compromise already effected between the parties. Crl.Misc. No.M-17168 of 2008 [3] Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the compromise was signed by him under wrong impression as at that time he did not go through the contents of the compromise. In principle, he was agreeing only for vacation of premises and not for withdrawal of the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner. The amount of Rs.12 lacs was not only as per compromise but some of the amount was as arrears of the rent which became due. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further submits that since no compromise has been effected between the parties, the FIR cannot be quashed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 has backed out from the agreement/compromise and accepted the amount of Rs.12 lacs and in compliance of that compromise already effected, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the present petitioner would be an abuse of process of the Court.
I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the contents of the FIR and other documents available on record.
The petitioner is co-owner along with two brothers of house No.96, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh and respondent No.2 was tenant in the annexe portion of the said house. Due to dispute between the parties, respondent No.2. lodged FIR No. 160 dated 21.8.2004 under Sections 380/448/411 IPC in Police station, Sector 19, Chandigarh against the petitioner. With the intervention of the respectables, parties had settled their dispute and entered into compromise on 17.12.2007 which is annexed as Annexure P-2 with the petition. As per terms of compromise, respondent Crl.Misc. No.M-17168 of 2008 [4] No.2 had agreed to vacate the premises taken on rent and to deliver vacant possession to the petitioner after getting an amount of Rs.12 lacs. Parties were also agreed to withdraw all the suits and not to pursue criminal complaint and other complaints filed in the police station and other litigation of any nature.
The present petition was filed for quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise dated 17.12.2007. Now, respondent No.2 has backed out from the compromise entered into between the parties by stating that he had signed the compromise due to some misunderstanding as he had not gone through the contents of the compromise. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 also submits that since the compromise has not been matured between the parties, FIR cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the compromise has been accepted by respondent No.2 and he has also accepted an amount of Rs.12 lacs, in cash, but he has backed out from the compromise to withdraw proceedings and to make any statement for quashing of FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mohd. Shamim vs. Smt. Nahid Begum 2005(1) RCR (Criminal) 697 and judgment of this Court in Ram Lal and others Vs. State of Haryana and another 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 823 to support his contention.
Since respondent No.2 has accepted an amount of Rs.12 lacs and still backing out from his compromise and during the proceeding he was asked to return that amount of Rs.12 lacs if he does not want to stick to his compromise, but he refused to return that amount, continuation of Crl.Misc. No.M-17168 of 2008 [5] proceedings would be an abuse of process of Court. Hon'ble the Apex Court has quashed the criminal proceedings in almost similar situation in case Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal and others 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 949 wherein it has been held as under:
"....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...."
15.In view of the conduct of the First Respondent in entering into the aforementioned settlement, the continuance of the criminal proceeding pending against the appellants, in our opinion, in the case also, would be an abuse of the process of the Court. The appellant No.1, however, would be entitled to withdraw the sum of Rs.50,000/- which has been deposited in the Court. We, therefore, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution Crl.Misc. No.M-17168 of 2008 [6] of India direct that the impugned judgment be set aside. The first Information Report lodged against the appellants is quashed. The appeal is allowed. However, this order should not be treated as a precedent."
In view of the conduct of respondent No.2 in entering into compromise/settlement, the continuation of criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of the Court as he had accepted an amount of Rs.12 lacs in cash but had backed out from his promise in giving statement with regard to quashing of criminal proceedings.
In view of what has been discussed above, the petition is allowed and FIR No.160 dated 21.8.2004 under Sections 380/448/411 IPC registered at Police Station, Sector 19, Chandigarh and other proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to recover the amount given to respondent No.2 on account of compromise.
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE Dated:19.7.2010 raghav