CRM-M-2773-2015 (OM) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-2773-2015 (OM)
Date of decision: 22.02.2018
Sunil Khanna and others …Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others …Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Present:- Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Swati Verma, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mrs. Anju Arora, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate
for respondents No. 2 and 3.
JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (Oral)
1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 84 dated 12.07.2013,
registered under Section 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code at Police
Station City Phagwara, District Kapurthala (Annexure P-1) and all
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including challan dated
01.08.2014.
2. Few brief facts need to be noticed for proper adjudication of
this case. A marriage came to be performed between petitioner No. 3 Tarun
Khanna and respondent No. 3 Litashi on 04.12.2011. Thereafter, the parties
left for Canada and it is while they were residing there, the differences arose
between the married couple. Since the marriage ran into trouble, the
aforesaid FIR was got registered here in India at the behest of the father of
respondent No. 3 against the petitioners herein. Thereafter, the matter was
1 of 5
04-03-2018 16:56:03 :::
CRM-M-2773-2015 (OM) -2-
investigated and a challan was put up. After several attempts, the matter was
eventually compromised and it was agreed between the parties to part ways.
Firstly, a settlement was arrived at between the parties on 03.12.2013
(Annexure P-3) before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court
which did not fructify, however, eventually, the parties arrived at an out of
court settlement on 01.02.2014 and the same was reduced in writing, which
is Annexure P-5. In terms of the said compromise, a sum of Rs. 30 Lakh
was to be paid to the daughter of the complainant i.e. respondent No. 3
herein. It was further agreed that the parties would have no objection in case
the instant FIR is quashed while further agreeing that a divorce petition
under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act would also be filed. A sum
of Rs. 6.5 Lakh was handed over to respondent No. 2 at the time of
grant of anticipatory bail to petitioners No. 1 and 2. The balance amount of
Rs. 23.5 Lakh was yet to be paid. Despite the said agreement that had come
into existence between the parties, which had duly been signed by
complainant Bal Kishan Wadhwa, few differences arose between Litashi
(daughter of the complainant) and Sunil Khanna-petitioner No. 1 (uncle of
Tarun Khanna). Again, an effort was made to resolve the differences
between the parties since during the interregnum, a divorce had already
been granted by the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario, Canada on
09.05.2017. By the said order, the marriage stood dissolved. Respondent
No. 3 Litashi had also preferred a claim petition for settlement of all
disputes/assets in Canada which also stood withdrawn. The only issue that
remained to be sorted out was of execution of certain documents. An offer
was made that in case respondent No. 3 was willing to execute a document
mainly an addendum to the compromise dated 01.02.2014 (Annexure P-5)
2 of 5
04-03-2018 16:56:05 :::
CRM-M-2773-2015 (OM) -3-
and a document titled as ‘full and final release’, the petitioners herein would
hand over the balance amount of Rs. 23.5 Lakh totaling a sum of Rs. 30
Lakh which would be in terms of the settlement arrived at between the
parties.
3. Today, the matter has been taken up for hearing and
Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate is present along with Mr. Bal Kishan
Wahdwa (respondent No. 2) and has handed over the copies of an
addendum to the compromise dated 01.02.2014 as well as a document titled
as ‘Full and Final release’, both dated 09.11.2017, originals of which have
been retained on the court file marked as ‘A’ and ‘B’. These documents have
been executed and witnessed at Ontario, Canada. Along with the said
documents, an affidavit of respondent No. 3 Litashi has also been furnished
in the Court in which respondent No. 3 has stated that she would have no
objection in case the instant FIR is quashed against the petitioners herein
while confirming that the divorce granted by the Superior Court of Justice,
Ontario, Canada is acceptable to her and applicable as well. It is also stated
in the affidavit that she would have no objection if her father receives the
said amount on her behalf and that if her father gives a statement regarding
quashing of the FIR and she would be bound by the said statement.
Affidavit of respondent No. 3 dated 09.08.2017 and photocopy of affidavit
dated 20.07.2017 are also taken on record as Mark ‘C’ and ‘D’.
4. Recognizing the settlement that was arrived at between the
parties, acknowledging receipt of Rs. 23.5 Lakh by way of demand drafts as
balance payment of Rs. 30 Lakh which was to be given as full and final
settlement, the statement of the complainant has been recorded separately.
Mr. Bal Kishan Wadhwa (complainant) signs the said statement duly
3 of 5
04-03-2018 16:56:05 :::
CRM-M-2773-2015 (OM) -4-
witnessed by his counsel.
5. Therefore, the matter stands settled amicably in terms of the
compromise entered into between the parties, full payment has been made
and received by Mr. Bal Kishan Wadhawa, the father of respondent No. 3
on her behalf.
6. Statement of Sunil Khanna, petitioner No. 1, has also been
recorded separately today in this Court, wherein he, on oath, has stated as
under:
“Stated that after disposal of CRM-M-2773-2015, no further
litigation would be initiated/instigated by Tarun Khanna or
any other family member against Ms. Litashi d/o Sh. Bal
Kishan Wadhwa or her family members in respect of any
dispute that would arise out of her marriage that stands
dissolved.”
7. Learned Addl. Advocate General, Punjab also submits that in
case the parties have indeed settled their dispute, the State would have no
objection to the quashing of the FIR, in view of the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and gone
through the record.
9. In a decision, based on compromise, none of the parties is a
loser. Rather, a compromise not only brings peace and harmony between
the parties to a dispute, but also restores tranquility in the society. After
considering the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that
both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, continuance of criminal
prosecution would be an exercise in futility, as the chances of ultimate
conviction are bleak.
4 of 5
04-03-2018 16:56:05 :::
CRM-M-2773-2015 (OM) -5-
10. Consequently, keeping in view the fact that the dispute has been
amicably settled and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Narinder Singh others vs. State of Punjab another, (2014) 6
SCC 466, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 84 dated 12.07.2013,
registered under Section 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code at Police
Station City Phagwara, District Kapurthala (Annexure P-1) and all
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including challan dated
01.08.2014 are quashed qua the petitioners herein.
11. Needless to say that since the marriage between the parties
stands dissolved, petitioner No. 3 (Tarun Khanna) would not harass the
daughter of the complainant in any manner whatsoever.
22.02.2018 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
04-03-2018 16:56:05 :::