CRM No.M-3569-2018 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
265
Criminal Misc. No. M-3569-2018
Date of Decision: May 15, 2018.
SUDHIR TANGRI …… PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR …… RESPONDENTS
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. Vikas Bahl, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Davinder Grover, Advocate,
Mr. Sangram S. Saron, Advocate and
Mr. Akshay, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashok S.Chaudhary, Addl.AG, Haryana.
Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate
for the complainant/respondent No.2.
*****
LISA GILL, J.
Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.239 dated
17.07.2017 under Sections 498A, 323, 377, 506 read with Section 12 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered at Police
Station Women Cell, Gurugram, alongwith all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom on the basis of a compromise dated 22.01.2018 (Annexure P-4)
arrived at between the parties.
It is submitted that the abovesaid FIR was registered against the
petitioner at the instance of respondent No. 2 due to matrimonial discord with her
husband-petitioner. It is submitted that no offence punishable under Section 377
1 of 4
20-05-2018 11:35:27 :::
CRM No.M-3569-2018 -2-
of IPC and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act or
any other offence is made out. Moreover, the matter has now been amicably
resolved between the parties. Petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 filed by the petitioner and respondent No. 2 has since been allowed on
27.04.2018. Certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2018 filed in
Court today, is taken on record subject to just exceptions. The parties have
complied with the terms and conditions of the settlement. In terms of settlement
dated 22.01.2018, two demand drafts dated 20.04.2018 for a sum of Rs.20 lakhs
drawn on State Bank of India and 09.05.2018 for a sum of Rs. 60 lakhs drawn on
City Bank in favour of respondent No. 2, have been handed over to respondent
No.2, who is present in Court, duly identified by her counsel. Photostat copies of
the said demand drafts are taken on record subject to just exceptions.
Respondent No. 2, present in Court reiterates that in view of the
settlement between the parties she has no objection in case the abovementioned
FIR is quashed against the petitioner. Custody of the children, it is affirmed, shall
be retained by respondent No. 2 with visitation rights afforded to the petitioner in
terms of the compromise.
This Court on 29.01.2018 directed the parties to appear before
learned trial court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements in respect to
the above-mentioned compromise. Learned trial court/Illaqa Magistrate 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/Illaqa
Magistrate was also directed to intimate whether the petitioner is
absconding/proclaimed offender and whether any other case is pending against
2 of 4
20-05-2018 11:35:29 :::
CRM No.M-3569-2018 -3-
him. Information was sought as to whether all affected persons are a party to the
settlement.
Pursuant to order dated 29.01.2018, the parties appeared before the
learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram and their statements were
recorded on 20.02.2018. Respondent No.2 stated that the matter has been
amicably resolved with the petitioner, out of her own free will without any
pressure, coercion or undue influence. It is mentioned that petition under Section
13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by her and her husband-petitioner.
Their statements were recorded on 22.01.2018. Respondent No.2 further stated
that she has no objection in case the abovesaid FIR against the petitioner is
quashed. Statement of the petitioner in respect to the settlement was recorded as
well.
As per report dated 20.02.2018 received from the learned Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugaram, satisfaction is expressed that the compromise
between the parties is genuine and voluntary, arrived at without any force or
coercion. Petitioner is not 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. It is reiterated that respondent No.2 has
no objection in case the abovementioned FIR is quashed subject to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the State, on instructions, submits that as the
abovesaid FIR arises out of a matrimonial dispute, the State has no objection to
the quashing of the FIR in question as well as all consequential proceedings on
the basis of a settlement arrived at between the parties.
In Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another
3 of 4
20-05-2018 11:35:29 :::
CRM No.M-3569-2018 -4-
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.
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.239 dated 17.07.2017
under Sections 498A, 323, 377, 506 read with Section 12 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered at Police Station Women
Cell, Gurugram, alongwith all consequential proceedings are, hereby, quashed.
(LISA GILL)
May 15, 2018 JUDGE
jyoti-3
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
20-05-2018 11:35:29 :::
