Crl. Misc. No.M-39864 of 2017 (OM) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

Crl. Misc. No.M-39864 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : 02.08.2018

Deepak
……Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab and another
…Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY

Present: Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Jagmohan Ghumman, DAG, Punjab.

***

ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.

The petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No. 21 dated

28.01.2016, registered under Section 354-C IPC Sections 66-A and 67 of

the Information Technology Act, Police Station C-Division, Amritsar.

Notice was given to respondent no.2 who has chosen not to

appear.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the complaint in this

case is by the wife of the petitioner and there were several other matters and

the parties had settled the same vide settlement Annexure P-2 arrived at in

April 2016 and specific statement was given by Reena that she would have

no objection if this FIR was quashed. The counsel says that respondent no.2

had received the amount and a divorce by mutual consent was passed and

thereafter, she did not appear in the quashing petition bearing no. CRM-M-

1 of 4
12-08-2018 23:47:39 :::
Crl. Misc. No.M-39864 of 2017 (OM) 2

22576-2016. The counsel states that the parties in that petition were

directed to get their statements recorded but she failed to appear despite two

opportunities and therefore, that petition was withdrawn and this petition

was filed. Counsel urges that she has taken benefit of the compromise and

has also received the amount and she could not back out of the arrangement.

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 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

2 of 4
12-08-2018 23:47:39 :::
Crl. Misc. No.M-39864 of 2017 (OM) 3
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 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.”

Respondent no.2 had entered into a settlement with the

petitioner and had agreed to withdrawal of all the litigations and had made a

specific statement with respect to the FIR No.21 dated 28.01.2016,

registered under Section 354-C IPC and Sections 66-A and 67 of the

Information Technology Act at Police Station C-Division, Amritsar.

Subsequently, the parties had filed a joint petition under Section 13-B of the

Hindu Marriage Act and respondent no.2 had received the amount and she

could not back out of the settlement after taking the benefit of the same.

3 of 4
12-08-2018 23:47:39 :::
Crl. Misc. No.M-39864 of 2017 (OM) 4

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

opinion that continuance of prosecution against the petitioner 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).

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 petitioner are quashed.

02.08.2018 (ANITA CHAUDHRY)
Sunil JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

4 of 4
12-08-2018 23:47:39 :::