SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Amarpreet Singh Sohal And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 25 September, 2018

Crl. Misc. M-24384-2018 (OM) -1-


CRM-33614-2018 in/and
Crl. Misc. M-24384-2018 (OM)
Date of Decision: 25.09.2018

Amarpreet Singh Sohal and others



State of Haryana and another



Present:- Mr. Satbir Rathore, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Mr. P.P. Chahar, DAG, Haryana.

Dr. Payel Mehta, Advocate
Legal Aid Counsel (HCLSC) with
Complainant-respondent No.2 in person.


1. This is a petition that has been filed under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 378 dated 15.07.2015

registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 323 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station

DLF II, Gurgaon, District Gurgaon and all subsequent proceedings arising there

from in view of the compromise (Annexure P/ 2).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that after the

registration of the FIR, the matter was compromised between the parties on the

1 of 5
14-10-2018 06:32:10 :::
Crl. Misc. M-24384-2018 (OM) -2-

intervention of the respectable of the society. As per the compromise (Annexure

P/2) it was agreed that the petitioners herein would pay a sum of ` 70,00,000/-

(Seventy Lakhs only) to the respondent no2 -complainant ( the respondent No.2

for short) , out of which amount, petitioners issued a Cheque of Rs. 50,00,000/-

(Rupees Fifty Lacs) vide Cheque No. 000170 drawn on HDFC Bank, Anand Lok

Branch, New Delhi dated 09.02.2018 and post dated Four Cheques bearing

numbers 000171, 000172, 000173 of ` 5,00,000/- each dated 09.08.2018,

09.02.2019, 09.08.2019 and 09.02.2020 respectively in favour of the respondent

drawn on HDFC Bank, Anand Lok Branch, New Delhi.

3. The petitioners also undertook in the said compromise to ensure

clearance of the said Cheques at the time of its presentation in the Bank. In the said

compromise it was also agreed that the respondent No.2 herein would hand over

the physical custody of two minor children namely Amrita Kaur Sohal (DOB

07.08.2003) and Master Angad Sohal (DOB 03.04.2006) along with their

passports and birth certificates to the petitioners. The respondent No.2 herein was

also to withdraw case filed under the Domestic Violence Act on receipt of cheque

of `50,00,000/- with the condition that the respondent No.2 would also have the

visitation rights as per the convenience of the children. Other terms and conditions

were also mentioned, one of them being that both the minor children would be

enrolled in a boarding school from the beginning of the new session starting in

2018. It was also mentioned in the said compromise that the rights of the minor

children would be kept alive and they would be entitled to inheritance of property

of their father namely petitioner No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner further

contends that despite respondent No.2 having received `50,00,000/- and having

en-cashed one cheque of `5,00,000/- in August, 2018, she has not come forward

to have the FIR quashed.

4. Notice of motion was issued in the said petition and appearance has

2 of 5
14-10-2018 06:32:11 :::
Crl. Misc. M-24384-2018 (OM) -3-

been caused by the complainant herself, who requested for an appointment of legal

aid counsel as she was not in a position to engage the one herself. Dr. Payal

Mehta, Advocate had been appointed as the Legal Aid Counsel to assist the Court

as well as to appear on behalf of respondent No.2

5. Today an application bearing CRM 33614-2018 has been preferred

by the respondent No.2 in which it is stated that two minor children who have

been enrolled in the Guru Nanak Fifth Centenary School in Mussoorie, which is

affiliated with ICSE Board. It is contended that the children have been enrolled in

the said school without their consent and due to change of school education and

difference in the study pattern; the children are not able to cope up with the

studies. It is contended that the children have filed a petition under the Guardians

and Wards Act on 17.04.2018 before the District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon. It

is further contended that the children should be called to appear before this Court

and they should be asked regarding their willingness and interest as to where they

want to live.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone

through the terms of the compromise that have been arrived at. A perusal of the

Annexure P/2 would reflect that the said compromise has been arrived at between

A.S. Sohal-petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 before the Family Court at

Gurgaon and after having received `50,00,000/- the respondent-complainant has

also en-cashed another `5,00,000/- Cheque which was dated 9th August, 2018.

7. This Court is not inclined to go into the issue raised by the

complainant-respondent No.2 i.e. to summon the children here to know as to

whether or not they are happy in their current boarding school, since they have

already approached the Family Court, Gurgaon seeking redressal of their rights.

8. The only question before this Court is whether or not the petitioners

herein are entitled to have the FIR quashed on the ground that they have complied

3 of 5
14-10-2018 06:32:11 :::
Crl. Misc. M-24384-2018 (OM) -4-

with the terms and conditions as mentioned in the compromise. A perusal of the

compromise clearly reflects that the respondent No.2 had entered into the

compromise before the courts below and had accepted and received a sum of ` 70

lakhs (` 50 lakhs in Cheque and 4 posted dated cheques of `5 lakhs each) as a full

and final settlement. At the relevant time respondent No.2 agreed that the custody

of the minor children should be handed over to their father and grandparents who

in turn would educate them and send them to a boarding school, which has been

done. The minor children are studying in Guru Nanak Fifth Centenary School

which is a boarding school in Mussoorie which is a reputed school.

9. The respondent No.2, in person, raised a concern that the minor

children were not happy and that they should be allowed to decide where they

wanted to stay. This argument cannot be made a ground for not quashing the FIR

since the respondent No.2 herself handed over the physical custody of the minor

children along with their birth certificates and passports. Moreover, an offer was

made to the respondent No.2 by the Court , that in case she would like to have the

compromise set aside, she could return the amount so received. This offer was not

taken up. The objection as raised by the respondent No.2 for not quashing the

aforesaid FIR is totally unfounded especially after receiving the settled amount. At

this stage it does not behoove her to oppose the quashing of the FIR.

10. It is settled law that the inherent power of the High Court under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

of State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram Anatrai Doshi and Ors.

(2014) 15 SCC 29 has observed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be

exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when the Court comes

to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse of

the process of the Court if such power is not exercised, Court would quash the

proceedings. In the instant case, when the matter stands settled between the parties

4 of 5
14-10-2018 06:32:11 :::
Crl. Misc. M-24384-2018 (OM) -5-

and the respondent in terms of the compromise has received her settlement and the

petitioners on their part have also complied with the terms and conditions as

specified there under ,it would be an abuse of the process of law in case

proceedings are allowed to continue.

11. In similar circumstances the Supreme Court in Ruchi Aggarwal vs.

Amit Kumar Aggarwal ( 2005) 3 SCC 299 observed as under:

” Therefore we are of the opinion that the appellant having receive the

relief she wanted without contest on the basis of terms of compromises , we

cannot now accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appeallant .

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

haraas the respondents”.

12. However, before parting with this judgment, it is stated that the petition

filed by the minor children under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 before the

District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon would be decided on its own merit.

13. In view of above discussion, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 378

dated 15.07.2015 registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 323 of Indian Penal Code

at Police Station DLF II, Gurgaon, District Gurgaon and all subsequent

proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure P/ 2) are

quashed . In view of the above, the application i.e. CRM 33614-2018 also stands


14. Registry is directed to pay the fee of Legal Aid Counsel Dr. Payel

Mehta as per the rules.

September 25, 2018 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
seema JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No

5 of 5
14-10-2018 06:32:11 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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 read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation