SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sikander Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 28 August, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-24922-2017
Date of decision: 28.08.2018

Sikander Singh and others

…Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another
…Respondents

*****

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present: Mr. Balbir Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioners.

Ms. Seena Mand, DAG, Punjab.

None for respondent No.2.

****

JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a petition that has been filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 31 dated

07.03.2017 under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 417 IPC, registered at Police

Station Machhiwara, District Khanna (Ludhiana) and all subsequent

proceedings arising there under.

2. In brief, the facts are that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2

solemnized a marriage on 04.04.2013 at Machhiwara, Tehsil Samrala,

District Ludhiana as per Sikh rites and ceremonies. Thereafter, matrimonial

differences arose between the parties which led to the filing of the above

referred FIR. In the said FIR, it had been stated that there was a demand of

1 of 5
05-09-2018 01:32:28 :::
CRM-M-24922-2017 -2-

dowry and harassment meted out to the complainant-respondent No.2 at the

hands of her husband and in-laws. After the registration of the FIR, the

matter was compromised between the parties with the intervention of family

members and other respectables. The grievances were settled and

incorporated in a settlement deed, wherein it was decided that petition under

Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act would be filed for dissolution of

the marriage. In terms of the said settlement, divorce petition was filed and

divorce has been granted and permanent alimony, as determined under the

agreement, has already been paid. In terms of the settlement/agreement, it

was further decided that Sharanjit Kaur-respondent No. 2 would give her

affidavit/statement as per requirement to petitioner No.1 to quash FIR No.

31 dated 07.03.2017 under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 417 IPC, registered at

Police Station Machhiwara, District Khanna (Ludhiana). Thereafter, the

petitioners preferred the instant petition for quashing of the FIR on the

ground that the petitioner No.1 had paid an amount of ` 2,50,000/- as full

and final settlement i.e. ` 1,25,000/- in the office of D.S.P, Samrala and `

1,25,000/- at the time of statement of the parties in proceedings under

Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

3. On notice of the petition, despite service there has been no

appearance on behalf of the complainant-respondent No.2 nor has any reply

been filed to the said quashing petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners prays

for quashing of the FIR on the ground that respondent No.2 is playing hide

2 of 5
05-09-2018 01:32:28 :::
CRM-M-24922-2017 -3-

and seek with the Court and after having suffered statement before the Addl.

Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Samrala in the proceedings initiated pursuant to a

compromise/settlement between the parties that she would ensure that

proceedings pending under FIR No. 31 dated 07.03.2017 under Sections

498-A, 406, 506 417 IPC, registered at Police Station Machhiwara, District

Khanna (Ludhiana) would be quashed, she has failed to stand by her

compromise. It is submitted that she has taken a sum of ` 2,50,000/- as her

past, present and future maintenance and permanent alimony.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned

State counsel and have also perused the pleadings as well as the decree of

divorce that has been granted to the parties.

6. A perusal of the decree of divorce and reference to the joint

statement made in proceeding thereunder would show that it had been

categorically agreed between petitioners and respondent No.2 that she

would ensure that proceedings pending under FIR No. 31 dated 07.03.2017

under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 417 IPC, registered at Police Station

Machhiwara, District Khanna (Ludhiana) would be quashed. Respondent

No.2 cannot be allowed to make a mockery of Court proceedings and the

statement made by her in Court cannot be ignored, nor can she be allowed to

act in a manner and take undue benefit under the compromise to the extent

she stands benefited. After having benefited and accepting maintenance

under the compromise, she cannot be allowed back out from the

compromise or wriggle out of the statement made before the Court.

3 of 5
05-09-2018 01:32:28 :::
CRM-M-24922-2017 -4-

7. It is settled law that the inherent power of the High Court under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon’ble Apex Court in

the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram Anatrai Doshi

and Ors., (2014) 15 SCC 29 has observed that powers under Section 482

Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only

when the Court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest

injustice or there would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power

is not exercised, Court would quash the proceedings. In the instant case

when the matter stands settled between the parties and respondent No.2 in

terms of the compromise has received her permanent alimony and also

suffered a statement before the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Samrala that

she would help in getting the FIR quashed, continuation of proceedings

under the FIR would be an abuse of the process of law. As complainant has

not contested the matter,the proceedings under the FIR deserve to be

quashed. In similar circumstances, the Apex Court in Ruchi Agarwal vs.

Amit Kumar Agrawal and others, (2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 299 has

observed as under :-

“8. ………………….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.”

4 of 5
05-09-2018 01:32:28 :::
CRM-M-24922-2017 -5-

8. In view of above discussion, this petition stands allowed. FIR

No. 31 dated 07.03.2017 under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 417 IPC,

registered at Police Station Machhiwara, District Khanna (Ludhiana) and all

subsequent proceedings pending thereunder are hereby quashed.

28.08.2018 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
Satyawan JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes.
Whether reportable No.

5 of 5
05-09-2018 01:32:28 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 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