Judgment:
S.K. Agarwal, J.
1. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. petitioners are seeking quashing of the FIR No. 243/92 under Sections 498A/406 IPC P.S. Anand Vihar pending in the court of Sh. J.P.S. Malik, MM, Delhi.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that petitioner No. 3 Naresh Kumar was married to respondent No. 2 Smt. Archana; marriage between the parties could not succeed and on account of personal & private differences between them, above noted FIR was registered on the report lodged by respondent No. 2. On 20th January, 1993 and 13th February, 1993 articles of Istridhan of the complainant were seized by the police and delivered to her. Other petitioners are the relatives of petitioner No. 3. They were challenged by the police. Petitioner No. 3 has filed a petition for divorce at Karnal and the same was decreed in his favor on 5th August, 1995. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 filed an Appeal in the High Court. The matter was heard by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High court, Chandigarh; there compromise between the parties was reached and in terms of compromise petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- to the respondent No. 2. She undertook not to claim any maintenance, past and future, and undertook to withdraw all litigations arising out of matrimonial dispute. She also undertook to withdraw the criminal case pending in the Criminal Court Shahdara. The appeal was disposed of by the High Court on 25th March, 1996. In view of the said order, he argued that continuation of proceedings against petitioners is an abuse of the process of law, thereforee, same be quashed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 did not contest the lodging of the FIR and seizure of Istridhan articles on 20th January, 1993 and 13th February, 1993 and the High Court order. However, he argued that on 11th February, 1993, during investigation of the above noted case, respondent No. 2 had handed over the list of balance Istridhan articles including Jewellery to the petitioners which were to be given back to her and that those articles are yet to be recovered. While admitting that sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- was paid to petitioner, he argued that this amount was paid only towards maintenance and, thereforee, the said FIR be not quashed. Learned APP for the State does not oppose the petition for quashing.
3. In order to appreciate the rival contentions it is necessary to refer to the order passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court disposing of the appeal FAO No. 134/1995 in terms of compromise between the parties. It reads:
'The appellant submits that as the respondent/husband has remarried after the passing of the judgment and decree, she may be permitted to withdraw this appeal.
The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. As the husband has paid a draft in the sum of Rs. 2,25,000/-. The appellant/wife has undertaken not to claim any maintenance, past or future. She also undertakes to withdraw all the litigation, arising out of or connected with the matrimonial dispute between the parties. The appellant has also assured that she will take all steps for withdrawal/composition/settlement of the criminal case, pending in the Court of matrimonial Magistrate, Shahdra.
sd/-R.P. SETHI
JUDGE
sd/- R.L. ANAND
JUDGE
March 25, 1996.'
(emphasis supplied)
4. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 2/complainant was working in the railway at the relevant time. In view of the same, I am unable to accept the argument that the complainant accepted Rs. 2,25,000/- only towards her maintenance. Articles of Instridhan were recovered by the police during investigation on 20th January, 1993 and 13th February, 1993. The respondent is resting her claim for the un-recovered jewellery on the list given on 11th February, 1993 during the investigations to the police. This claim was very much within her knowledge on the date she accepted Rs. 2,25,000/- before Division Bench in High Court on 25th March, 1996 when she specifically undertook to withdraw/settle criminal case pending in the Matrimonial Court, Shahdra. If that was so, respondent No. 2 ought to have not agreed or ought to have sought clarification from the High Court. That having not been done, now it does not lie in her mouth and argued that she never agreed to get the criminal proceeding quashed. This contention is without merit and the same is rejected.
5. In the facts and circumstances noticed above, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the court and the same are liable to be quashed in terms of same law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, : 1992CriLJ527 and several subsequent judgments.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the above FIR and proceedings arising out of the same are quashed.
7. Petition stands disposed of.