Criminal Misc. No.M- 26628 of 2016 (OM) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M- 26628 of 2016 (OM)
Date of decision : December 04, 2017
Rajesh Chaudhary and others …..Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another ….Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. Sudhir Hooda, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Anmol Malik, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Rajesh Dhankhar, Advocate for
Mr. Sanjeev Kadian, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
***
LISA GILL, J.
Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No. 701 dated
23.11.2015 under Sections 498A, 406, 506 IPC registered at Police Station
Sadar, District Rohtak and all other consequential proceedings arising
therefrom.
It is informed that during the pendency of this petition, the
matter has been amicably resolved by the parties on 26.07.2017. Said
compromise is attached with this file. It is submitted that petitioner No. 3
and his wife – respondent No. 2 decided to part ways. Petition under Section
13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been filed by the parties. It is decided
that a sum of `20 lakhs shall be handed over to respondent No. 2 as full and
final settlement of all her claims – past, present and future qua maintenance,
1 of 4
10-12-2017 00:06:07 :::
Criminal Misc. No.M- 26628 of 2016 (OM) 2
alimony etc., which she may have against her husband – petitioner No. 3. It
is submitted that part of the settled amount i.e. `10 lakhs was handed over to
respondent No. 2 at the time of recording of statements of the parties at first
motion. The petitioner undertakes to pay rest of the balance amount of `10
lakhs to respondent No. 2 at the time of recording of statements of the
parties at second motion on 15.02.2018.
This Court on 26.07.2017 directed the parties to appear before
learned trial court for recording their statements in respect to the above-
mentioned compromise. Learned trial court was directed to submit a report
regarding the genuineness of the compromise, as to whether it has been
arrived at out of the free will and volition of the parties without any
coercion, fear or undue influence. Learned trial court was also directed to
intimate whether any of the petitioners are absconding/proclaimed offenders
and whether any other case is pending against them. Information was
sought as to whether all affected persons are a party to the settlement.
Pursuant to order dated 26.07.2017, the parties appeared before
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rohtak and their statements were
recorded on 02.08.2017. Respondent No.2 stated that the matter has been
amicably resolved by her with all the accused petitioners. It is agreed that
she and her husband would part ways and `20 lakhs would be handed over
to her as permanent alimony. It is stated that she received a sum of ` 10
lakhs at the time of recording of statements at first motion in petition under
Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The settlement, it is stated, has
been arrived at out of her own free will, without any kind of fear, pressure
or undue influence. Respondent No.2 further stated that she has no
objection to the quashing of the abovesaid FIR qua the petitioners. A joint
2 of 4
10-12-2017 00:06:08 :::
Criminal Misc. No.M- 26628 of 2016 (OM) 3
statement of the petitioners in respect to the compromise was also recorded.
As per report dated 05.08.2017 received from the learned Civil
Judge (Jr. Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rohtak, it is
opined that that the compromise between the parties is genuine, voluntary,
arrived at without any coercion or undue influence. None of the petitioners
is reported to be a proclaimed offender. Statements of the parties are
appended alongwith the said report.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 reaffirms and verifies the
factum of settlement between the parties as well as receipt of half of the
settled amount. It is reiterated that respondent No.2 has no objection to the
quashing of the abovementioned FIR subject to strict adherence to the
terms and conditions of the settlement by the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from SI Rajinder
Singh, submits that as the abovesaid FIR arises out of a matrimonial dispute,
the State has no objection to the quashing of this FIR on the basis of a
settlement arrived at between the parties.
In Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and
another 2007 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1052, a five member Bench of this
Court has observed as under:-
“The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua
non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice
and if the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure
Code is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn,
enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is
“finest hour of justice”.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi and others v. State
of Haryana, 2003(4) SCC 675 has observed that it becomes the duty of the
Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.
3 of 4
10-12-2017 00:06:08 :::
Criminal Misc. No.M- 26628 of 2016 (OM) 4
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, it
would be in the interest of justice to quash the abovesaid FIR as no useful
purpose would be served by continuance of the present proceedings. It will
merely lead to wastage of precious time of the court and would be an
exercise in futility.
This petition is, thus, allowed and FIR No. 701 dated
23.11.2015 under Sections 498A, 406, 506 IPC registered at Police Station
Sadar, District Rohtak alongwith all consequential proceedings are, hereby,
quashed.
However, liberty is afforded to respondent No.2 to file
necessary application for revival of the proceedings in the above said FIR,
in case the terms and conditions of settlement between the parties are not
adhered to by the petitioner(s) or it is found that the settlement was a mere
ruse to have the aforesaid FIR quashed.
(Lisa Gill)
December 04, 2017 Judge
rts
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
10-12-2017 00:06:08 :::