Judgment:
CRM not M-32866 of 2012 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (238) CRM not M-32866 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision:
16. 07.2013.
Prashant and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Rakesh Bakshi, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana.
Mr.M.S.Rana, Advocate for Mr.N.S.Panwar, Advocate for respondent No.2.
**** SABINA, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No.450 dated 17.09.2009 under Section 498-A, 406, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'Act') registered at Police Station City Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that all the matrimonial disputes between the parties have been amicably settled on the basis of compromise dated 26.09.2009 (Annexure P-2).Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 got a decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent.
Petitioners No.1 had paid CRM not M-32866 of 2012 (O&M) -2- Rs.1,00,000/- in cash to respondent No.2 towards her Istridhan articles etc.not respondent No.2 has got remarried.
As per the compromise, petitioner No.1 is maintaining/upbringing the minot child.
Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, have opposed the petition.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has denied the factum of compromise between the parties.
Learned State counsel, on instructions from Assistant Sub-Inspector Jaswant Singh, on a query put by this Court on an earlier date has submitted that respondent No.2 has got remarried in the year 2010.
He has also submitted that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 had got a decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent.
Respondent No.2 had received Rs.1,00,000/- from the petitioners at the time of amicable settlement between the parties.
In the present case, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 had got married on 20.02.2006.
They were blessed with a daughter out of the said wedlock.
However, a matrimonial dispute arose between the parties.
Respondent No.2 filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.seeking maintenance.
Respondent No.2 also lodged the FIR in question.
Petitioner No.1 had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.
Annexure P-2 is the copy of the compromise deed executed between the parties.
Although respondent No.2 has denied the said CRM not M-32866 of 2012 (O&M) -3- compromise but perusal of Annexure P-2, in vernacular, reveals that the same has been signed by respondent No.2.
A perusal of the said compromise further reveals that the parties had amicably settled their dispute and had undertaken that the parties shall not prosecute the other party in the Court of law.
The fact that a compromise had been effected between the parties is evident from the statements of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 recorded in the divorce proceedings.
Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 had filed a petition seeking divorce on the basis of mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The joint statement made by the parties in the said proceedings (Annexure P-3) reveals that the parties had stated that not they had amicably settled their dispute.
Parties were residing separately since June, 2008.
It was also stated by the parties that as per the compromise, respondent No.2 had received Rs.1,00,000/- in cash from petitioner No.1.
It was also submitted by the parties that petitioner No.1 had returned all the dowry articles to respondent No.2 and not nothing remained due against each other.
It was agreed that the minot child would remain in the custody of petitioner No.1.
On the basis of the joint statement made by the parties, decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent was passed on 24.04.2010.
The judgement/decree passed in the petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been placed on record as Annexure P-4.
The passing of the said decree is not in dispute.
CRM not M-32866 of 2012 (O&M) -4- Thus, it is evident that parties had amicably settled their disputes and consequently, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 had got a decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent.
It was also decided between the parties that custody of the child shall remain with petitioner No.1.
It has also transpired during the couRs.of the arguments that not respondent No.2 has got remarried.
It has been held by the Apex Court in 'Ruchika Agarwal versus Amit Kumar Agrawal, 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 949' 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 Cr.P.C.It is true that she had made a complaint in writing to the Family Court where Section 125 Cr.P.C.proceedings were pending CRM not M-32866 of 2012 (O&M) -5- 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.”
In these, circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners with regard to FIR in question would be nothing but abuse of process of law.
Accordingly this petition is allowed.
FIR No.450 dated 17.09.2009 under Section 498-A, 406, 506 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station City Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE July 16, 2013 sandeep sethi