SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sunil Khanna And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 22 February, 2018

CRM-M-2773-2015 (OM) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-2773-2015 (OM)
Date of decision: 22.02.2018

Sunil Khanna and others …Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others …Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:- Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Swati Verma, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Mrs. Anju Arora, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate
for respondents No. 2 and 3.

JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (Oral)

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 84 dated 12.07.2013,

registered under Section 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code at Police

Station City Phagwara, District Kapurthala (Annexure P-1) and all

subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including challan dated

01.08.2014.

2. Few brief facts need to be noticed for proper adjudication of

this case. A marriage came to be performed between petitioner No. 3 Tarun

Khanna and respondent No. 3 Litashi on 04.12.2011. Thereafter, the parties

left for Canada and it is while they were residing there, the differences arose

between the married couple. Since the marriage ran into trouble, the

aforesaid FIR was got registered here in India at the behest of the father of

respondent No. 3 against the petitioners herein. Thereafter, the matter was

1 of 5
04-03-2018 16:56:03 :::
CRM-M-2773-2015 (OM) -2-

investigated and a challan was put up. After several attempts, the matter was

eventually compromised and it was agreed between the parties to part ways.

Firstly, a settlement was arrived at between the parties on 03.12.2013

(Annexure P-3) before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court

which did not fructify, however, eventually, the parties arrived at an out of

court settlement on 01.02.2014 and the same was reduced in writing, which

is Annexure P-5. In terms of the said compromise, a sum of Rs. 30 Lakh

was to be paid to the daughter of the complainant i.e. respondent No. 3

herein. It was further agreed that the parties would have no objection in case

the instant FIR is quashed while further agreeing that a divorce petition

under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act would also be filed. A sum

of Rs. 6.5 Lakh was handed over to respondent No. 2 at the time of

grant of anticipatory bail to petitioners No. 1 and 2. The balance amount of

Rs. 23.5 Lakh was yet to be paid. Despite the said agreement that had come

into existence between the parties, which had duly been signed by

complainant Bal Kishan Wadhwa, few differences arose between Litashi

(daughter of the complainant) and Sunil Khanna-petitioner No. 1 (uncle of

Tarun Khanna). Again, an effort was made to resolve the differences

between the parties since during the interregnum, a divorce had already

been granted by the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario, Canada on

09.05.2017. By the said order, the marriage stood dissolved. Respondent

No. 3 Litashi had also preferred a claim petition for settlement of all

disputes/assets in Canada which also stood withdrawn. The only issue that

remained to be sorted out was of execution of certain documents. An offer

was made that in case respondent No. 3 was willing to execute a document

mainly an addendum to the compromise dated 01.02.2014 (Annexure P-5)

2 of 5
04-03-2018 16:56:05 :::
CRM-M-2773-2015 (OM) -3-

and a document titled as ‘full and final release’, the petitioners herein would

hand over the balance amount of Rs. 23.5 Lakh totaling a sum of Rs. 30

Lakh which would be in terms of the settlement arrived at between the

parties.

3. Today, the matter has been taken up for hearing and

Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate is present along with Mr. Bal Kishan

Wahdwa (respondent No. 2) and has handed over the copies of an

addendum to the compromise dated 01.02.2014 as well as a document titled

as ‘Full and Final release’, both dated 09.11.2017, originals of which have

been retained on the court file marked as ‘A’ and ‘B’. These documents have

been executed and witnessed at Ontario, Canada. Along with the said

documents, an affidavit of respondent No. 3 Litashi has also been furnished

in the Court in which respondent No. 3 has stated that she would have no

objection in case the instant FIR is quashed against the petitioners herein

while confirming that the divorce granted by the Superior Court of Justice,

Ontario, Canada is acceptable to her and applicable as well. It is also stated

in the affidavit that she would have no objection if her father receives the

said amount on her behalf and that if her father gives a statement regarding

quashing of the FIR and she would be bound by the said statement.

Affidavit of respondent No. 3 dated 09.08.2017 and photocopy of affidavit

dated 20.07.2017 are also taken on record as Mark ‘C’ and ‘D’.

4. Recognizing the settlement that was arrived at between the

parties, acknowledging receipt of Rs. 23.5 Lakh by way of demand drafts as

balance payment of Rs. 30 Lakh which was to be given as full and final

settlement, the statement of the complainant has been recorded separately.

Mr. Bal Kishan Wadhwa (complainant) signs the said statement duly

3 of 5
04-03-2018 16:56:05 :::
CRM-M-2773-2015 (OM) -4-

witnessed by his counsel.

5. Therefore, the matter stands settled amicably in terms of the

compromise entered into between the parties, full payment has been made

and received by Mr. Bal Kishan Wadhawa, the father of respondent No. 3

on her behalf.

6. Statement of Sunil Khanna, petitioner No. 1, has also been

recorded separately today in this Court, wherein he, on oath, has stated as

under:

“Stated that after disposal of CRM-M-2773-2015, no further
litigation would be initiated/instigated by Tarun Khanna or
any other family member against Ms. Litashi d/o Sh. Bal
Kishan Wadhwa or her family members in respect of any
dispute that would arise out of her marriage that stands
dissolved.”

7. Learned Addl. Advocate General, Punjab also submits that in

case the parties have indeed settled their dispute, the State would have no

objection to the quashing of the FIR, in view of the law laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and gone

through the record.

9. In a decision, based on compromise, none of the parties is a

loser. Rather, a compromise not only brings peace and harmony between

the parties to a dispute, but also restores tranquility in the society. After

considering the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that

both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, continuance of criminal

prosecution would be an exercise in futility, as the chances of ultimate

conviction are bleak.

4 of 5
04-03-2018 16:56:05 :::
CRM-M-2773-2015 (OM) -5-

10. Consequently, keeping in view the fact that the dispute has been

amicably settled and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Narinder Singh others vs. State of Punjab another, (2014) 6

SCC 466, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 84 dated 12.07.2013,

registered under Section 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code at Police

Station City Phagwara, District Kapurthala (Annexure P-1) and all

subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including challan dated

01.08.2014 are quashed qua the petitioners herein.

11. Needless to say that since the marriage between the parties

stands dissolved, petitioner No. 3 (Tarun Khanna) would not harass the

daughter of the complainant in any manner whatsoever.

22.02.2018 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No

5 of 5
04-03-2018 16:56:05 :::

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