SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ashwani Kumar & Others vs State Of Punjab & Another on 19 December, 2018

Crl. Misc. No. M-282 of 2018 (OM) . 1


Crl. Misc. No.M-282 of 2018 (OM)
Date of decision : 19.12.2018

Ashwani Kumar and others


State of Punjab and another


Present: Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Ms. Jaspreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab.

None for respondent no.2.



Petitioner no.1 is the husband whereas petitioners no.2 3 are

the father-in-law and the mother-in-law of the complainant. The FIR was

registered in October, 2014. The petitioners claim that after the registration

of the FIR, a compromise was effected between the parties and it was agreed

that the complainant would get the FIR quashed. A petition under Section

13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed and the marriage between

petitioner no.1 and the complainant was dissolved on 09.07.2018.

The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking quashing

of the FIR in view of the compromise. The petitioners have approached this

Court pleading that the they had complied with all the conditions of

compromise and since the matter has been settled finally and divorce had

been granted and payment had been made, therefore, the FIR qua them

should be quashed.

1 of 5
26-12-2018 08:18:37 :::
Crl. Misc. No. M-282 of 2018 (OM) . 2

Notice of motion was issued. The parties were directed to

appear before the trial Court for getting their statements recorded with

regard to the compromise. Report has been received from the trial Court that

complainant did not appear to get her statement recorded with regard to

compromise. The trial Court has reported that only the petitioners have

appeared and suffered a joint statement that they have already settled their

matter with the complainant and a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- has already been

paid to the complainant, in terms of the compromise. However, complainant

Rajinder Kaur has not come present to make her statement with respect to

the compromise despite the parties were ordered to appear before the trial

Court twice. The trial Court has also sent copy of the statements of

petitioners, copy of petition filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage

Act and copy of the judgment passed therein .

Counsel for the petitioners has referred to the certified copy of

petition filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and has urged

that a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- had been paid to the complainant towards life

time maintenance. Counsel for the petitioners also refers to certified copy of

the statements made by the parties in the petition filed under Section 13-B

of the Hindu Marriage Act wherein the complainant admitted that she had

received Rs.7,00,000/- from petitioner no.1 as settlement amount and

nothing was due. She had undertaken to appear before the High Court for

quashing of present FIR registered against petitioner no.1 and his family


Hon’ble the Apex Court in Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar

Agarwal2004(4) RCR (Crl.) 949 has held as under:-

“4. In the compromise petition, referred to herein above, both the
parties had agreed to withdraw all the civil and criminal cases filed by

2 of 5
26-12-2018 08:18:37 :::
Crl. Misc. No. M-282 of 2018 (OM) . 3
each against the other. It is pursuant to this compromise, the above
divorce as sought for by the appellant was granted by the husband
and pursuant to the said compromise deed the appellant also
withdrew Criminal Case No. 63 of 2002 on the file of the Family Court,
Nainital which was a complaint filed under Section 125 of the Criminal
Procedure Code for maintenance. It is on the basis of the submission
made on behalf of the appellant and on the basis of the terms of the
compromise, said case came to be dismissed. However, so far as the
complaint under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 Indian Penal Code and
under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned,
which is the subject matter of this appeal, the appellant did not take
any steps to withdraw the same. It is in those circumstances, a
quashing petition was filed before the High Court which came to be
partially allowed on the ground of the territorial jurisdiction, against
the said order the appellant has preferred this appeal.

5. From the above narrated facts, it is clear that in the compromise
petition filed before the Family Court, the appellant admitted that she
has received Stridhan and maintenance in lump sum and that she will
not be entitled to maintenance of any kind in future. She also
undertook to withdraw all proceedings civil and criminal filed and
initiated by her against the respondents within one month of the
compromise deed which included the complaint under Sections 498A,
323 and 506 Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act from which complaint this appeal arises. In the said
compromise, the respondent-husband agreed to withdraw his petition
filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act pending before the
Senior Judge, Civil Division, Rampur and also agreed to give a
consent divorce as sought for by the appellant.

6. It is based on the said compromise the appellant obtained a divorce
as desired by her under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act and
in partial compliance of the terms of the compromise she withdrew
the criminal case filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure
Code but for reasons better known to her she did not withdraw that
complaint from which this appeal arises. That apart after the order of
the High Court quashing the said complaint on the ground of
territorial jurisdiction, she has chosen to file this appeal. It is in this
background, we will have to appreciate the merits of this appeal.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, however, contended
that though the appellant had signed the compromise deed with the
above-mentioned terms in it, the same was obtained by the
respondent-husband and his family under threat and coercion and in
fact she did not receive lump sum maintenance and her Stridhan
properties, we find it extremely difficult to accept this argument in the
background of the fact that pursuant to the compromise deed the
respondent-husband has given her a consent divorce which she
wanted thus had performed his part of the obligation under the

3 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 26-12-2018 08:18:37 :::
Crl. Misc. No. M-282 of 2018 (OM) . 4
compromise deed. Even the appellant partially performed her part of
the obligations by withdrawing her criminal complaint filed under
Section 125. It is true that she had made a complaint in writing to the
Family Court where Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code proceedings
were pending that the compromise deed was filed under coercion but
she withdrew the same and gave a statement before the said court
affirming the terms of the compromise which statement was recorded
by the Family Court and the proceedings were dropped and a divorce
was obtained. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant
having received the relief she wanted without contest on the basis of
the terms of the compromise, we cannot now accept the argument of
the learned counsel for the appellant. 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 harass the respondents.”

A perusal of the petition filed by petitioner no.1 and respondent

no.2 Rajinder Kaur shows that a compromise was effected between the

parties. The statements recorded in the proceedings under Section 13-B of

the Hindu Marriage Act support the contention of the petitioners. In the

proceedings filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, a sum of

Rs.7,00,000/- had been given to the complainant. There is also reference to

the fact that nothing remained due against each other and she had admitted

before the Court below that she would withdraw the criminal case registered

against the petitioners. Respondent no.2 is now backing out of the

compromise, which is out of greed or for the reasons better known to her.

In this view of the matter, the Court is of the considered

opinion that continuance of prosecution against the petitioners would be an

abuse of process of law. Reference can also be made to Mohd. Shamim Vs.

Smt. Nahid Begum, 2005(1) RCR(Crl.) 697, Rajesh Ors. Vs. State of

Haryana Ors. 2013(1) Law Herald (PH) 909, Shlok Bhardwaj Vs.

Runika Bhardwaj Ors. 2015(1) RCR(Crl.) 249 and Jitender Bhargav

Vs. State of Haryana Anr. (Crl.Misc.No.M-34829 of 2014, decided by

this Court on 21.05.2015).

4 of 5
26-12-2018 08:18:37 :::
Crl. Misc. No. M-282 of 2018 (OM) . 5

Furthermore, in the case of State of Haryana Ors. Vs. Ch.

Bhajan Lal Ors. 1991(1) RCR (Crl.) 383 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme

Court had observed that where continuance of prosecution is abuse of

process of law, the Court would be within its power to quash the


There is no legal impediment in exercising the powers under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. considering the facts of the case. Therefore, in view of

the discussion made above, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned

FIR and consequent proceedings thereto, qua petitioners are quashed.

19.12.2018 (ANITA CHAUDHRY)

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

5 of 5
26-12-2018 08:18:37 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 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