Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ankur Arora And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 15 December, 2009
Author: S.S. Saron
Bench: S.S. Saron
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
Criminal Misc. No.M-32622 of 2009
.....
Date of decision:15.12.2009
Ankur Arora and others
.....Petitioners
v.
State of Haryana and another
.....Respondents
....
Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Rajeev K. Takkar, Additional Advocate General, Haryana
for the respondent-State.
Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate for the complainant-respondent No.2.
.....
S.S. Saron, J.
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.' - for short) has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.482 dated 28.11.2007 (Annexure-P.1) registered at Police Station Sector 7, Faridabad for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 and 323 Indian Penal Code (`IPC' - for short) and all subsequent proceedings based thereon.
The marriage between Ankur Arora (petitioner No.1) and Neha Sikka (respondent No.2) was solemnized on 2.2.2006 at Faridabad. However, due to temperamental differences, incompatibility and many other differences, they could not live together as husband and wife. On account of the matrimonial dispute that occurred between the parties the complainant-Neha Sikka (respondent No.2) lodged the impugned FIR (Annexure-P.1) alleging commission of offences under Sections 498-A, Cr. Misc. No.M-32622/2009 [2] 406, 506 and 323 IPC. The charge in the case has been framed and now the case is fixed for evidence of the prosecution on 29.3.2010. The petitioner No.1-Ankur Arora had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (`Act' - for short) for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Now, the parties have mutually settled their matrimonial dispute and a joint petition (Annexure-P.2) has been filed by petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 in terms of Section 13-B of the Act seeking dissolution of their marriage by way of mutual consent. In the proceedings in the said petition the parties have also made a statement on 29.10.2009 (Annexure- P.3) before the District Judge (Family Court), Gurgaon. After recording the statements of the parties the case has been adjourned to 29.4.2010 to await the expiry of six months statutory period. Respondent No.2 has also deposed an affidavit dated 29.10.2009 (Annexure-P.6) by which the terms of settlement arrived at between the parties have been accepted by respondent No.2. It is inter alia agreed by respondent No.2 that she will receive total sum of Rs.15 lakhs from petitioner No.1 towards permanent alimony, marriage expenses etc. A sum of Rs.5 lakhs has been paid to respondent No.2 at the time of recording the statement of the parties and the demand draft dated 2.9.2009 drawn on Punjab National Bank has been received by respondent No.2. A short term FDR for a period of six months for an amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs has been prepared by petitioner No.1 which is to be paid to respondent No.2 at the time of recording the statement of respondent No.2 regarding second motion. The FDR prepared in favour of respondent No.2 has already been given to her. However, the same is to be encashed only at the time of respondent No.2 making statement regarding Cr. Misc. No.M-32622/2009 [3] second motion. Today, in Court bank draft No.074141 dated 10.12.2009 drawn on Union Bank of India, Gurgaon for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- has been handed over to respondent No.2 who is present in Court and identified by her counsel Shri B.S. Bedi, Advocate. The same has been accepted by her. Respondent No.2 has further stated that she has no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR and that she is making the statement of her own free will and without any kind of pressure or undue influence.
The Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 has held that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of powers of quashing. The High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the said case the quashing of FIR was sought due to settlement of the matrimonial dispute between the parties. The husband and wife had agreed to mutually divorce and the wife supported the quashing of the said proceedings. It was held that there was almost no chance of conviction and it would be improper to decline to exercise the power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable offences. The non-exercise of inherent powers to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would rather prevent the women from settling earlier and that would be against the object of Section 498-A IPC. The Supreme Court had rather emphasized that there should be an endeavour on the part of the Courts to encourage genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the fact that Cr. Misc. No.M-32622/2009 [4] the parties have amicably resolved their dispute, the continuation of proceedings in pursuance of the impugned FIR (Annexure-P.1) would be an exercise in futility.
Learned counsel for the State has submitted that in case the parties have settled their matrimonial dispute, then in view of the judgment in B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another (supra) the State would have no serious objection to the quashing of the FIR.
Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No.482 dated 28.11.2007 (Annexure-P.1) registered at Police Station Sector 7, Faridabad for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 and 323 IPC and all subsequent and consequential proceedings in pursuance thereof shall stand quashed.
December 15, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No