SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rajesh Chaudhary & Anr vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 4 December, 2017

Criminal Misc. No.M- 26628 of 2016 (OM) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. No.M- 26628 of 2016 (OM)
Date of decision : December 04, 2017

Rajesh Chaudhary and others …..Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and another ….Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present: Mr. Sudhir Hooda, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Mr. Anmol Malik, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Rajesh Dhankhar, Advocate for
Mr. Sanjeev Kadian, Advocate
for respondent No.2.

***
LISA GILL, J.

Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No. 701 dated

23.11.2015 under Sections 498A, 406, 506 IPC registered at Police Station

Sadar, District Rohtak and all other consequential proceedings arising

therefrom.

It is informed that during the pendency of this petition, the

matter has been amicably resolved by the parties on 26.07.2017. Said

compromise is attached with this file. It is submitted that petitioner No. 3

and his wife – respondent No. 2 decided to part ways. Petition under Section

13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been filed by the parties. It is decided

that a sum of `20 lakhs shall be handed over to respondent No. 2 as full and

final settlement of all her claims – past, present and future qua maintenance,

1 of 4
10-12-2017 00:06:07 :::
Criminal Misc. No.M- 26628 of 2016 (OM) 2

alimony etc., which she may have against her husband – petitioner No. 3. It

is submitted that part of the settled amount i.e. `10 lakhs was handed over to

respondent No. 2 at the time of recording of statements of the parties at first

motion. The petitioner undertakes to pay rest of the balance amount of `10

lakhs to respondent No. 2 at the time of recording of statements of the

parties at second motion on 15.02.2018.

This Court on 26.07.2017 directed the parties to appear before

learned trial court for recording their statements in respect to the above-

mentioned compromise. Learned trial court was directed to submit a report

regarding the genuineness of the compromise, as to whether it has been

arrived at out of the free will and volition of the parties without any

coercion, fear or undue influence. Learned trial court was also directed to

intimate whether any of the petitioners are absconding/proclaimed offenders

and whether any other case is pending against them. Information was

sought as to whether all affected persons are a party to the settlement.

Pursuant to order dated 26.07.2017, the parties appeared before

the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rohtak and their statements were

recorded on 02.08.2017. Respondent No.2 stated that the matter has been

amicably resolved by her with all the accused petitioners. It is agreed that

she and her husband would part ways and `20 lakhs would be handed over

to her as permanent alimony. It is stated that she received a sum of ` 10

lakhs at the time of recording of statements at first motion in petition under

Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The settlement, it is stated, has

been arrived at out of her own free will, without any kind of fear, pressure

or undue influence. Respondent No.2 further stated that she has no

objection to the quashing of the abovesaid FIR qua the petitioners. A joint

2 of 4
10-12-2017 00:06:08 :::
Criminal Misc. No.M- 26628 of 2016 (OM) 3

statement of the petitioners in respect to the compromise was also recorded.

As per report dated 05.08.2017 received from the learned Civil

Judge (Jr. Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rohtak, it is

opined that that the compromise between the parties is genuine, voluntary,

arrived at without any coercion or undue influence. None of the petitioners

is reported to be a proclaimed offender. Statements of the parties are

appended alongwith the said report.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 reaffirms and verifies the

factum of settlement between the parties as well as receipt of half of the

settled amount. It is reiterated that respondent No.2 has no objection to the

quashing of the abovementioned FIR subject to strict adherence to the

terms and conditions of the settlement by the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from SI Rajinder

Singh, submits that as the abovesaid FIR arises out of a matrimonial dispute,

the State has no objection to the quashing of this FIR on the basis of a

settlement arrived at between the parties.

In Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and

another 2007 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1052, a five member Bench of this

Court has observed as under:-

“The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua
non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice
and if the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure
Code is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn,
enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is
“finest hour of justice”.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi and others v. State

of Haryana, 2003(4) SCC 675 has observed that it becomes the duty of the

Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.

3 of 4
10-12-2017 00:06:08 :::
Criminal Misc. No.M- 26628 of 2016 (OM) 4

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, it

would be in the interest of justice to quash the abovesaid FIR as no useful

purpose would be served by continuance of the present proceedings. It will

merely lead to wastage of precious time of the court and would be an

exercise in futility.

This petition is, thus, allowed and FIR No. 701 dated

23.11.2015 under Sections 498A, 406, 506 IPC registered at Police Station

Sadar, District Rohtak alongwith all consequential proceedings are, hereby,

quashed.

However, liberty is afforded to respondent No.2 to file

necessary application for revival of the proceedings in the above said FIR,

in case the terms and conditions of settlement between the parties are not

adhered to by the petitioner(s) or it is found that the settlement was a mere

ruse to have the aforesaid FIR quashed.

(Lisa Gill)
December 04, 2017 Judge
rts
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

4 of 4
10-12-2017 00:06:08 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Group Rules, If You agree then JOIN HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh