268.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-40342-2018
Date of decision:22.01.2019.
LALIT PRASHAR … Petitioner
versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR …. Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA
—-
Present: Mr. Jagjot Singh, Advocate, for
Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Manish Bansal, DAG, Haryana,
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Rohit Rana, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
—-
HARI PAL VERMA, J.(Oral)
Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for
quashing of F.I.R. No.212 dated 01.04.2016 registered under Sections
498-A, 406 IPC at Police Station Ballabhgarh City Faridabad, District
Faridabad (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom
on the basis of joint statement dated 28.08.2018 (Annexure P-3).
The statement of the parties made before the Family Court at
Faridabad on 28.08.2018 reads as under:-
“We were married on 30.1.2013 in accordance with Hindu rites
and ceremonies at Faridabad. From this wedlock, one daughter
namely Deeksha was born on 20.3.2014. However, due to
temperamental differences, we could not adjust ourselves and
are living separately since 25.01.2016. The efforts made by our
1 of 5
10-02-2019 04:25:07 :::
CRM-M-40342-2018 -2-relatives and friends for our reunion have also failed and now
there is no possibility of our reunion and we have decided to
get our marriage dissolved by way of decree of divorce by way
of mutual consent. All the dispute between us have been settled
amicably for a sum of Rs.5.5 lac regarding permanent alimony
as full and final settlement towards maintenance allowance for
past, present and future and Istridhan, etc. Out of which an
amount of Rs.3 lac in cash has been paid by the petitioner no.2-
husband to petitioner no.1-wife. The remaining amount of
Rs.2.5 lac shall be paid by the petitioner no.2-husband to the
petitioner no.1-wife at the time of second motion. The custody
of above said child would remain with petitioner no.2-father.
We have no claim whatsoever against each other. We shall be
bound by our statement, and the contents of our joint petition
filed under section 13B of HMA. Petitioner no.1-wife is
accompanied by her brother-Sh. Vivek Sharma and petitioner
no.2-husband is accompanied by his father Sh. Ram Prakash
Parashar. We, therefore, pray that our marriage may kindly be
dissolved by way of decree of divorce by mutual consent.”
This Court vide order dated 14.09.2018 had directed the parties
to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to get their statements
recorded and the learned Magistrate was directed to send its report qua the
genuineness of the compromise.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, parties have appeared before
learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad and got their statements
recorded. On the basis of the statements so recorded, learned Magistrate has
submitted report dated 20.11.2018 to the effect that the compromise has
been effected between the parties voluntarily, without any threat, pressure,
undue influence or fraud. The complainant has no objection in case the FIR
in question is quashed.
2 of 5
10-02-2019 04:25:07 :::
CRM-M-40342-2018 -3-
Respondent No.2-complainant, namely, Asha Sharma made her
statement with regard to compromise before learned Magistrate on
20.11.2018. The same is reproduced as under:-
“Stated that the matter has been compromised between the
parties. As per the compromise she along-with her husband
Lalit Parashar filed the petition under Section 13-B, Hindu
Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage. The statements of
both were recorded at the time of first motion in the divorce
petition. As per the compromise the total amount of
Rs.5,50,000/- is to be paid to the complainant/wife by the
accused/husband. She received Rs.3,00,000/- from the
respondent/husband. The remaining amount of Rs.2,50,000/- is
to be paid by the accused at the time of recording the
statements in the second motion in divorce petition. The
compromise taken place between us without any force, coercion
or undue influence. She has no objection in quashing of the FIR
after payment of the remaining amount of Rs.2,50,000/- by the
accused/husband to her. The record of the proceedings before
the learned Family Court, Faridabad in divorce petition is
Ex.C-1 which contains the statement of both the petitioners,
copy of the petition for divorce. The other accused named in the
FIR, Ram Parkash Parashar (father-in-law), Naresh Kumari
(mother-in-law), Gagan (brother-in-law) and Rekha (sister-in-
law) were found innocent in the police investigation. The police
filed the challan only against accused/husband. No accused is
P.O. in the present case.”
As per the compromise, a total amount of Rs.5,50,000/- is to be
paid to the complainant by the petitioner-husband. Out of this amount, she
has received Rs.3 lakhs from the petitioner-husband. The remaining amount
of Rs.2,50,000/- is to be paid at the time of recording the statements at the
second motion in the divorce petition filed under Section 13-B of Hindu
Marriage Act.
3 of 5
10-02-2019 04:25:07 :::
CRM-M-40342-2018 -4-
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2-complainant admits
the factum of compromise and states that he has no objection in case the FIR
in question is quashed. However, he states that the petitioner may be
directed to make the payment of Rs.2,50,000/- at the time of second motion
in a divorce petition filed under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
In terms of the compromise so entered between the parties,
petitioner was required to pay Rs.5,50,000/- to the complainant and out of
which, an amount of Rs.3 lakhs has been paid to the complainant, for which,
there is no dispute. For the remaining amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, the petitioner
is required to pay the said amount at the second motion in a divorce petition
filed under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act.
In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served to
continue with the proceedings before the trial Court in the instant F.I.R.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gold Quest International Private
Limited Versus State of Tamil Nadu and others-2014 (4) RCR (Criminal)
206 has held that the disputes which are substantially matrimonial in nature,
or the civil property disputes with criminal facets, if the parties have entered
into settlement, and it has become clear that there are no chances of
conviction, there is no illegality in quashing the proceedings under Section
482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 226 of the Constitution.
Thus, following the principles laid down by the Full Bench
judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Versus State of
Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and approved by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and others
(2012) 10 SCC 303 as also in the light of Gold Quest International Private
4 of 5
10-02-2019 04:25:07 :::
CRM-M-40342-2018 -5-
Limited’s case (supra), this petition is allowed and F.I.R. No.212 dated
01.04.2016 registered under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC at Police Station
Ballabhgarh City Faridabad, District Faridabad (Annexure P-1) and all
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner on
the basis of joint statement dated 28.08.2018 (Annexure P-3), however, that
would be subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the
Poor Patients’ Welfare Fund of the Postgraduate Institute of Medical
Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, within 15 days from today.
It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to pay the agreed
amount of Rs.2,50,000/- at the second motion in pending proceedings, the
complainant shall be at liberty to seek revival of the present petition on
account of non-payment of said amount.
(HARI PAL VERMA)
JUDGE
22.01.2019
sanjeev
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
5 of 5
10-02-2019 04:25:07 :::
