Crl. Misc. M-24384-2018 (OM) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. M-24384-2018 (OM)
Date of Decision: 25.09.2018
Amarpreet Singh Sohal and others
State of Haryana and another
CORAM:- HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
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.
JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (Oral)
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)
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
14-10-2018 06:32:11 :::