CRM-M-35717-2012(OM)
CRM-7045-2014 in CRM-M-33075-2011 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

(1) CRM-M-35717-2012(OM)

Girraj @ Jitender
…Petitioner
Versus

Om Parkash and others
…Respondents

(2) CRM-7045-2014 in
CRM-M-33075-2011

Jitender @ Girraj and others
…Petitioners
Versus

State of Haryana and another
…Respondents

Date of Decision:-11.9.2018

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN

Present: Mr.Kunal Dawar, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Mr.Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.

Mr.Shiv Kumar, Advocate
for the complainant.

****

1 of 9
02-10-2018 23:43:54 :::
CRM-M-35717-2012(OM)
CRM-7045-2014 in CRM-M-33075-2011 -2-

H.S. MADAAN, J.

By this order, I shall dispose of CRM-M-35717-2012 filed by

petitioner Girraj @ Jitender for quashing of application/complaint bearing

case No.341/1 dated 22.11.2010 seeking initiation of proceedings under

Section 182 IPC moved by respondent against the petitioner along with all

subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including order dated

22.11.2010 passed by SDJM, Hathin, issuing notice upon such application

on the basis of compromise as evident from order dated 16.12.2011

passed by this Court in CRM-M-33075 of 2011 and CRM-7045-2014

filed by applicant/respondent No.2 for recalling the order dated

16.12.2011 passed in CRM-M-33075-2011.

Inter alia in CRM-M-35717-2012, it is contended that

marriage between petitioner Girraj @ Jitender and respondent No.2

Satyawati was solemnized on 20.6.1995 as per Hindu rites and

ceremonies; that after the marriage, the couple cohabited together but

were not blessed with any child; unfortunately the spouses could not lead

happy marital life, resultantly Satyawati lodged FIR No.49 dated

30.1.2002 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 494, 506 IPC with

Police Station Sector-7, Faridabad against the petitioner and his family

members; in addition to that she had brought a petition under Section 125

Cr.P.C. for maintenance against the present petitioner; the petitioner had

also filed a criminal complaint under Sections 323, 324, 452, 506, 34 IPC

against his wife Satyawati, Satyawati’s brother Om Parkash and mother

Maya; in the said criminal complaint, the respondents were acquitted by

SDJM, Hathin vide judgment dated 25.10.2010; the petitioner had filed an

2 of 9
02-10-2018 23:43:54 :::
CRM-M-35717-2012(OM)
CRM-7045-2014 in CRM-M-33075-2011 -3-

appeal against that judgment, whereas Om Parkash, brother of Satyawati

had filed a criminal complaint for defamation against the present

petitioner; that in the meanwhile respondents had filed a complaint

seeking initiation of proceedings under Section 182 IPC against the

petitioner for the reason that in para No.16 of the judgment passed by

SDJM, Hathin, while dismissing the criminal complaint filed by the

present petitioner and acquitting the respondents in that case had observed

that the complaint was nothing but a bundle of lies, filed as a pressure

tactics due to State cases; that vide order dated 22.11.2010, notice of the

application was ordered to be issued.

According to the petitioner, the trial Court has straightway

issued the notice of application without due application of mind for the

reason that cognizance of offence under Section 182 IPC could only be

taken by way of filing a complaint in writing by a public servant in terms

of Section 195 Cr.P.C. and not by private individuals, however, the trial

Magistrate vide order dated 14.7.2011 had served notice of accusation

upon the petitioner but the parties had arrived at a compromise in Daily

Lok Adalat held at Palwal Courts wherein their statements were recorded

and as per the terms of the agreement, the petitioner would pay a sum of

Rs.7,50,000/- to respondent No.2 as settlement of permanent alimony and

both the spouses agreed to get their marriage dissolved by a decree of

divorce by mutual consent settling all the disputes; that both the parties

agreed to withdraw all the cases filed by them against each other; that an

amount of Rs.7,50,000/- was agreed to be given to respondent No.2 at the

time of quashing of the FIR; that petitioner along with his family

3 of 9
02-10-2018 23:43:54 :::
CRM-M-35717-2012(OM)
CRM-7045-2014 in CRM-M-33075-2011 -4-

members, who are accused in FIR approached this Court by way of filing

CRM-M-33075-2011 for quashing of FIR and subsequent proceedings

arising therefrom on the basis of compromise; in the said petition, the

respondent No.2 Satyawati put in appearance and filed an affidavit dated

16.12.2011 with regard to factum of compromise, wherein it was clearly

stated that both the parties would withdraw all civil and criminal cases

filed by them against each other; that thereafter vide order dated

16.12.2011 FIR (Anenxure P-1) was quashed on the basis of compromise;

that a draft of Rs.7.5 lakhs was handed over to respondent No.2 in the

Court. However, offence under Section 182 IPC being not compoundable

and notice of accusation having been issued, the petitioner has approached

this Court by way of filing the present petition. It is further pleaded that an

appeal was filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 25.10.2010

passed by the trial Court acquitting the respondents, in the Court of

Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal but as a result of settlement between

the parties, he has since withdrawn that appeal.

It has further been contended that cognizance of offence

under Section 182 IPC can be taken by the Court only on the complaint of

a public servant as per mandate of Section 195(1)(a) (i) Cr.P.C. Legal

position has also been given stating that the Apex Court in authority B.S.

Joshi and ors Versus State of Haryana anr., 2003(2) RCR(Criminal)888

has held that in case of matrimonial disputes, High Court may quash the

proceedings where parties settle their disputes as it is the duty of the Court

to encourage genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes. Another citation

in that regard has been referred to as Madan Mohan Abbot Versus State

4 of 9
02-10-2018 23:43:54 :::
CRM-M-35717-2012(OM)
CRM-7045-2014 in CRM-M-33075-2011 -5-

of Punjab, 2008(2) RCR(Criminal) 429. In the end, a prayer for

acceptance of petition has been made.

On notice of CRM-M-35717-2012, the respondents appeared.

Respondent No.2 filed reply to the petition craving for dismissal of the

petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, besides going

through the record and I find that there is merit in the petition.

The very maintainability of complaint under Section 182 IPC

is suspect. Section 195 IPC deals with offence of giving or fabricating

false evidence with intent to procure conviction of offence punishable

with imprisonment for life or imprisonment.

Section 182 IPC deals with case of false information, with

intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of

another person.

Section 195 Cr.P.C. deals with prosecution for contempt of

lawful authority of public servants providing that:

No Court shall take cognizance-

(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both
inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), or

(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on
the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some
other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.

Here in the present case a very strange procedure has been

adopted by Judicial Magistrate, concerned. Om Parkash – respondent

5 of 9
02-10-2018 23:43:54 :::
CRM-M-35717-2012(OM)
CRM-7045-2014 in CRM-M-33075-2011 -6-

No.1 had filed an application to initiate proceedings under Section 182

IPC against Girraj. It was for the Court concerned after making due

inquiry as to whether any complaint was to be filed or not. The Court

rather issued notice to respondent Girraj and when he put in appearance,

served notice of accusation upon him treating it like a private complaint

case, which was certainly not required in accordance with law.

Furthermore, mere some observations made in the judgment, while

dismissing the criminal complaint filed by petitioner against respondents,

does not mean that complaint under Section 182 IPC was required to be

filed. It had to be first seen whether false information had been given to

any public servant, which the informant knew or believed such

information to be false with an intention thereby to cause or likely to

cause that public servant would do or omit anything, which he ought not

to do or omit if true facts were within his knowledge and lawful power of

such public servant was used to cause injury or annoyance to any person.

No such satisfaction is shown to have been recorded by the trial

Magistrate. He has developed a strange procedure to deal with the issue.

Therefore, the application for initiating proceedings under Section 182

IPC against the present petitioner and all subsequent proceedings

including his summoning and serving of notice of accusation upon him

are not sustainable.

Similarly, the dispute between the parties has been settled

amicably and continuance of proceedings in question is uncalled for.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to authority Ruchi

Agarwal Versus Amit Kumar Agrawal, 2004(4) RCR(Criminal)949 by

6 of 9
02-10-2018 23:43:54 :::
CRM-M-35717-2012(OM)
CRM-7045-2014 in CRM-M-33075-2011 -7-

the Apex Court, wherein it was observed that when the parties had entered

into compromise and got divorce by mutual consent, however wife was

not withdrawing FIR under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC despite

compromise,t he FIR was quashed observing that wife just wanted to

harass her husband even after getting the relief. He has further referred to

authority Mohd. Shamin Versus Smt.Nahid Begum, 2005(1)

RCR(Criminal)697 by Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was a case when an FIR

under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC was registered on account of matrimonial

dispute between the two spouses, however, the wife had entered into

settlement at intervention of Court and accepting Rs.2.25 lacs from

husband, though subsequently she backed out, the FIR was quashed

observing that in view of conduct of wife, continuance of proceedings

would be an abuse of process of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner

further pressed into service Purshotam Gupta and Ors. Versus State and

Anr., 2008(2) RCR(Criminal)564, Jinander Mann Versus State, 2007(5)

AD(Delhi) 180 and Rajinder Kumar Chhibbar Versus Aseem Bakshi,

2006(3) RCR(Criminal)586.

Therefore, CRM-M-35717-2012 stands allowed and

application/complaint bearing case No.341/1 dated 22.11.2010 seeking

initiation of proceedings under Section 182 IPC moved by respondent

against the petitioner along with all subsequent proceedings arising

therefrom including order dated 22.11.2010 passed by SDJM, Hathin

stand quashed.

As regards connected CRM-7045-2014 in CRM-M-33075-

2011 for recalling order dated 16.12.2011, vide which FIR No.49 dated

7 of 9
02-10-2018 23:43:54 :::
CRM-M-35717-2012(OM)
CRM-7045-2014 in CRM-M-33075-2011 -8-

30.1.2002 under Sections 498-A, 406, 494, 506 IPC registered with Police

Station Sector-7, Faridabad and all subsequent proceedings emanating

therefrom had been quashed on the basis of compromise, the application

is doomed for failure.

According to the applicant, Girraj is blackmailing him. Girraj

is taking undue advantage of the compromise and order passed by this

Court, therefore, order be recalled; the compromise be cancelled and

proceedings arising out of FIR be ordered to be revived. An undertaking

has been given for return of Rs.7.5 lakhs paid by petitioner at the time of

settlement.

This request is being resisted on behalf of Girraj @ Jitender.

From the record, it comes out that the compromise had been

entered into between the parties voluntarily and there is no question of

any pressure or undue influence being exerted on any of the parties. The

wife had obtained a sum of Rs.7.5 lacs under the compromise. She had

appeared in this Court and furnished an affidavit that all the matrimonial

disputes had been resolved for that reason the said FIR had been quashed.

No party can be allowed to wriggle out of the compromise, which has in

fact been entered into between the husband and wife. The compromise

having been recorded in the Court, it cannot be said that any party was

under some misconception or misunderstanding or was coerced to enter

into that compromise. Satyawati complainant had derived benefit under

the compromise and received Rs.7.5 lacs. It is not her sweet will that she

would accept the compromise sometime and then having a second thought

pray that the proceedings, which have already taken place on the basis of

8 of 9
02-10-2018 23:43:54 :::
CRM-M-35717-2012(OM)
CRM-7045-2014 in CRM-M-33075-2011 -9-

compromise be set aside.

Finding no merit in the application bearing No. CRM-7045-

2014 in CRM-M-33075-2011, the same stands dismissed.

Necessary information be sent to the quarter concerned.

11.9.2018 (H.S.MADAAN)
Brij JUDGE

Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

9 of 9
02-10-2018 23:43:54 :::