IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
151 CRM-M-12692-2019
Date of Decision : April 30, 2019
ARUN SHARMA AND ORS
…..Petitioners
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
…..Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR
Present : Mr. Vipin Gogia, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Ashish Yadav, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. Manish Prabhakar, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
Mr. V.K.Kaushal, Advocate
for respondents No.3 and 4.
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (Oral)
The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is filed for quashing of the FIR No. 144 dated
2.4.2013 under Sections 323, Section498-A, Section506 IPC, registered at Police Station
Sector-5, Panchkula.
The said petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for quashing of the above mentioned FIR has been filed on the
basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties. The FIR was
registered at the instance of complainant-respondent No.2-Shruti Dhingra
@ Shruti Sharma, who is the wife of petitioner No.1. The said FIR is an
outcome of matrimonial discord between petitioner No.1-husband and
respondent No.2-wife. The contempt petition No.2287 of 2015 came to
1 of 6
12-05-2019 05:10:28 :::
CRM-M-12692-2019 -2-
be filed by Shruti Dhingra @ Shruti Sharma-respondent No.2. During
the pendency of the said contempt petition, a compromise was effected
between the parties. Accordingly, the said contempt petition was
disposed of by this Court on 18.12.2018 with the following directions:-
“(1) Petitioner-Shruti Sharma shall also move an
appropriate application allowing the petition pending for
setting aside the order dated 20.11.2013 passed by CJM,
Panchkula, titled as SectionShruti Sharma vs. Arun Sharma and
others, in view of the settlement arrived at between the
parties. On moving such application by the petitioner,
order passed under the SectionDomestic Violence Act shall be set
aside subject to payment of Rs.65 lakhs by way of demand
draft, in favour of petitioner-Shruti Sharma, which shall be
handed over to the petitioner simultaneously in the Court.
(2) An appropriate application/petition for
quashing of FIR bearing No. 144 dated 02.04.2013 under
Sections 323/Section498-A/Section406 and Section506 IPC registered at Police
Station Sector 5, Panchkula or an appropriate application
for acceptance of cancellation report, shall also be moved
by the parties within one month of the setting aside the
order dated 20.11.2013 passed under the SectionDomestic
Violence Act. The second installment of Rs.60 lakhs shall
be paid by respondent No.1 or respondent No2, as the case
may be, at the time of quashing of FIR bearing No. 144
dated 02.04.2013 under Sections 323/Section498-A/Section406 and Section506
IPC registered at Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula. It is,
however, clarified that quashing of FIR/acceptance of
cancellation report will be subject to handing over of the
demand draft of Rs.60 lacs, to the petitioner.
(3) Both the parties shall move an appropriate
application for converting the divorce petition filed under2 of 6
12-05-2019 05:10:29 :::
CRM-M-12692-2019 -3-Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act into Section 13-B of
the Hindu Marriage Act. Thereafter, both the parties shall
appear before the concerned Court for first motion hearing
on the date so fixed by the concerned Court.
Respondent No.1 or respondent No.2, as the case
may be, shall hand over the demand draft of Rs.60 lakhs to
the petitioner on the first motion hearing of the divorce
petitioner under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.
(4) Rs.40 lakhs, which is deposited with the
Registrar (General) of this Court, shall be released
immediately to the petitioner on an order of finalization of
the divorce petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu
Marriage Act, being produced before the Registrar
(General) of this Court.
(5) Both the parties shall withdraw all the case
filed/registered against each other.”
Thereafter, in pursuance to the said compromise, an
application for setting aside the judgment and order dated 20.11.2013
passed by the CJM, Panchkula under Section 12 of the Domestic
Violence Act was filed. The same was set-aside by the CJM, Panchkula
vide order dated 31.1.2019 and respondent No.2 accordingly received the
demand draft of Rs.65 lacs as per the said compromise.
Accordingly, the quashing petition has also been moved in
pursuance to the same compromise. When the matter was listed on
12.4.2019, the parties were present in person. Learned counsel for
respondent No.2 requested for time to file affidavit in terms of the
compromise entered between the parties. Today, the parties are, once
again, present in the Court with their respective counsel. An affidavit of
3 of 6
12-05-2019 05:10:29 :::
CRM-M-12692-2019 -4-
respondent No.2-Shruti Dhingra @ Shruti Sharma wife of Arun Sharma
and daughter of Mohan Lal Dhingra has been filed stating therein in para
No.7 stated that she has no objection if the FIR mentioned above is
quashed. It is also stated in the said affidavit that respondent No.2 has no
objection if the application filed by her before the Office of the Ministry
of External Affairs and the Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh are
treated as withdrawn or cancelled and nor does she have objection if the
Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh restores/renews the Indian Passport
of petitioner No.1-Arun Sharma and same is dispatched to his address,
with the further undertaking in the affidavit that respondent No.2 has no
objection if the look out notice, if any, issued against petitioner No.1,
namely, Arun Sharma is also withdrawn and cancelled. Respondent No.2
also has no objection if the deportation proceedings initiated against
petitioner No.1-Arun Sharma are dropped or set-aside in view of the
compromise having been arrived at between the parties.
Respondent No.2, who is present in the Court admits that the
affidavit dated 17.4.2019 placed on record has been duly signed by her.
It is further stated by learned counsel for the respondents that the
respondent has no objection if the said FIR is quashed in terms of the said
compromise.
In view of the order passed by this Court on 18.12.2018 P-2
on the basis of the compromise as well as taking into account the
affidavit dated 17.4.2019 filed before this Court as also the stand of the
learned counsel for the respondents as well as respondent No.2 herself
before this Court the compromise arrived at between the parties is indeed
4 of 6
12-05-2019 05:10:29 :::
CRM-M-12692-2019 -5-
genuine and the same has been arrived at between the parties without any
pressure. Moreover, the petitioners in pursuance to the said compromise
have also brought two demand drafts of Rs.28 lacs and Rs.32 lacs, copies
of which are being retained on the record of this Court. The said demand
drafts are handed over to respondent No.2, who is present in the Court.
She has duly received the said demand drafts. Hence, there is no
inhibition before this Court to quash the FIR especially taking into
account that the said FIR arises out of a matrimonial dispute.
In view of the above (a) FIR No. 144 dated 2.4.2013 under
Sections 323, Section498-A, Section506 IPC, registered at Police Station Sector-5,
Panchkula as well as all the proceedings arising out of the FIR stand
quashed.
Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has also stated before
this Court that in view of the FIR having been quashed, they shall recall
the deportation proceedings initiated against petitioner No.1 as well as
the look notice, if any.
(b) It is, therefore, directed that the application filed by
respondent No.2-Shruti Dhingra @ Shruti Sharma before the office of
Ministry of External Affairs and the deportation proceedings initiated
against petitioner No.1, namely, Arun Sharma shall stand withdrawn and
no action shall be taken in pursuance to the said application or the
deportation proceedings.
(c) The Regional Passport Officer, Chandigarh shall also
restore the new Indian Passport to Arun Sharma in terms of the
compromise and the affidavit filed before this Court.
5 of 6
12-05-2019 05:10:29 :::
CRM-M-12692-2019 -6-
(d) Both the parties shall remain bound by the compromise
arrived between the parties.
It is, however, clarified that in case the failure of petitioner
No.1 to move an appropriate application under Section 13-B of the Hindu
Marriage Act or the failure of petitioner No.1 to make appropriate
statement before the concerned Court for the grant of divorce, the
respondent No.2 will be at liberty to move an appropriate application
before this Court for revival of the present Criminal Miscellaneous
application and the learned counsel for the petitioners states that they will
not raise any objection with respect that the same cannot be recalled as
per law. Petitioner No.1 shall not raise the objection that the same is not
permissible under the law. It is also clarified that respondent No.2 shall
also cooperate in moving the appropriate application under Section 13-B
of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Allowed in above terms.
( NIRMALJIT KAUR )
April 30, 2019 JUDGE
ajay-1
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
6 of 6
12-05-2019 05:10:29 :::
