Crl.
Misc.
not M-20925 of 2011 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.
Misc.
not M-20925 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:
21. 11.2012.
Rishab ........Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.
A.G., Haryana.
None for respondent No.3....SABINA, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR No.12 dated 3.1.2006, under Section 323, 452, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) registered at Police Station DLF, Gurgaon.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact respondent No.3 had got registered three FIRs against her in-laws family.
Respondent No.3 had also moved an application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Thereafter, a compromise was effected between the parties.
Respondent No.3 and Jatinder Sharma (brother of the petitioner) filed petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce on the basis of mutual consent.
In the said petition, respondent No.3 had specifically stated that she would withdraw all the criminal cases initiated by her against her husband and his family members including the Crl.
Misc.
not M-20925 of 2011 (O&M) -2 - present FIR.
Annexure P-3 is the compromise deed which was duly signed by respondent No.3.
In pursuance to the compromise effected between the parties, respondent No.3 had received ` 2,00,000/- from her husband.
However, later on respondent No.3 had backed out from the compromise.
Thereafter, FIR No.107 dated 11.2.2005, under Section 380 and 384 IPC, registered at Police Station DLF, Gurgaon and FIR No.326 dated 8.8.2004 under Section 498-A, 323, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station DLF Gurgaon were quashed by this Court vide order dated 26.4.2011 (Annexure P-5).In support of his argument, learned counsel has placed reliance on 'Ruchi Aggarwal versus 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 Crl.
Misc.
not M-20925 of 2011 (O&M) -3 - 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 received the relief she wanted without contest on the basis of the terms of the compromise, we cannot No.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.”
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.
None has appeared on behalf of respondent No.3.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed.
Annexure P-2 is the petition filed by Jitender Sharma and respondent No.3 seeking divorce on the basis of mutual consent.
In the said petition, respondent No.3 was arrayed as petitioner No.2.
Para 9 of the said petition reads as under:- “That the petitioner No.2 will withdraw all the criminal cases filed by her against the petitioner No.1 and his family members which are pending in the court at Crl.
Misc.
not M-20925 of 2011 (O&M) -4 - Gurgaon and the cases are listed below:- (i) FIR No.326 Dated 8.8.2004 U/s 498A, 323, 506 IPC P.S.DLF pending in the court of Sh.
Narender Singh JMIC Gurgaon.
(ii) FIR No.107 Dated 11.2.2005 U/s 380, 384 IPC P.S.DLF pending in the court of Sh.
Narender Singh JMIC Gurgaon.
(iii) FIR No.12 Dated 3.1.2006 U/s 323, 452, 506, 34 IPC pending in the court of Sh.
Narender Singh JMIC Gurgaon.
(iv) Application U/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act pending in the court of ACJ.Gurgaon.
That in case if the petitioner No.1 intend to file petition for quashing of the above noted FIR before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in that event the petitioner No.2 will help in quashing of the above noted FIR and will appear before the Hon'ble High Court and make the statement in the favour of petitioner No.1.”
Thereafter, Jatinder Sharma and respondent No.3 made their statements before the Family Court on 25.11.2010.
the said joint statement of the parties reads as under:- “That our marriage was solemnized on 28.2.2004 at Sonipat, Haryana as per Hindu rites and custoMs.After marriage we lived together as husband and wife.
A female child namely Bhavya Sharma aged about 5 years was born out of the said wedlock.
However, due Crl.
Misc.
not M-20925 of 2011 (O&M) -5 - to some unavoidable reasons and temperamental differences we have separated from each other for last more than 5 years and no cohabitation has taken place between us since then.
We have tried our best to reconcile but failed.
not there are no chances of our residing together as husband and wife as our relations have deteriorated to a great extent and it will be in the interest of both the parties to get the marriage dissolved by mutual consent.
That the parties have settled all type of claims whatsoever in respect of this marriage.
Petitioner No.2 has received all her dowry articles from petitioner No.1 and will not claim anything regarding dowry articles in future from petitioner No.1.
Petitioner No.2 has also received Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lac Only) as permanent alimony from petitioner No.1 and will not claim any maintenance after grant of decree of divorce from petitioner No.1.
The custody of minot child namely Bhavya Sharma will remain with petitioner No.2 i.e.mother and petitioner no.1 will not claim the custody of Bhavya in future.
That the parties hereto further undertake not to file any legal proceedings against each other or their family members in future.
The mutual consent has not been obtained by force, fraud, undue influence, threat to anyone and this petition has not been presented in collusion with each other.”
Annexure P-3 is the compromise deed which has been duly signed by respondent No.3.
Para 1 of the compromise deed Crl.
Misc.
not M-20925 of 2011 (O&M) -6 - reads as under:- “That Party No.2 will withdraw all the Criminal cases pending with different courts filed by Party No.2 against Party No.1, the cases are listed below:- (a) FIR No.326 dated 8.8.2004 u/s 498A, 323, 506 IPC P.S.DLF, Gurgaon.
(b) FIR No.107 dated 11.2.2005 u/s 380, 384 IPC P.S.D.L.F.Gurgaon.
(c) FIR No.12 dated 3.1.2006 u/s 323, 452, 506, 34 IPC P.S.DLF.
Gurgaon.
All the cases are pending in the Court of Sh.
Narender Singh, JMIC, Gurgaon.
(d) Application u/s 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, pending in the Court of ACJM, Gurgaon.”
Thus, it is evident that FIR in question was registered against the petitioner due to matrimonial discord between respondent No.3 and her husband Jatinder Sharma.
Parties had amicably settled their disputes and had decided to move on in life and sought divorce on the basis of mutual consent.
However, later on respondent No.3 has backed out from the compromise.
This Court has already quashed FIR No.107 dated 11.2.2005, under Section 380 and 384 IPC, registered at Police Station DLF, Gurgaon and FIR No.326 dated 8.8.2004 under Section 498-A, 323, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station DLF Gurgaon basing reliance on the compromise effected between the parties although respondent No.3 had stated that the compromise effected between the parties was not genuine.
Respondent No.3 Crl.
Misc.
not M-20925 of 2011 (O&M) -7 - had received ` 2,00,000/- in terms of compromise effected between the parties.
It was also agreed between the parties that custody of the minot child would remain with respondent No.3.
Respondent No.3 had agreed that she would withdraw the FIR in question but had later on backed out from the compromise.
In view of the facts stated above, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner, who is the younger brother of the husband of respondent No.3, would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed.
FIR No.12 dated 3.1.2006, under Section 323, 452, 506, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station DLF, Gurgaon and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE November 21, 2012 Gurpreet