IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. 77642-M of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: 28th May, 2009 Yash Pal Sharma and others … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Kharb, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Criminal Misc. No. 27832 of 2009 Application is allowed. Statement and judgment passed by the District Judge, Panchkula are taken on record. Criminal Misc. No. 77642-M of 2006 Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 220 dated 07.11.2002 registered at Police Station Pinjore, District Panchkula under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506, 120-B IPC. Counsel for the petitioners has stated at bar that case is pending in the trial Court and is at final stage for addressing arguments. Counsel has further stated that in the present case, compromise was arrived at between the estranged wife respondent No.2 Smt. Happy Criminal Misc. No. 77642-M of 2006 (O&M) Sharma and family of the accused petitioners and in lieu of the compromise, a divorce under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act has been granted by way of mutual consent. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon joint statement (Annexure P-4) made by the husband and wife before the District Judge, Panchkula on 7th March, 2007. The statement reads as under: “We reiterate our joint statement, which was recorded by this Court on 1.9.2006. A draft of Rs.1,00,000/- has been given by petitioner No.1 Yash Pal Sharma to petitioner No.2 Happy Sharma today in the Court and the same has been received by petitioner No.2 Happy Sharma. Our Marriage may be dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act. R.O. & A.C. Sd/- District Judge/ 7.3.2007” Counsel for the petitioners has further stated that joint statement has been noticed in the judgment granting divorce by way of mutual consent. The joint statement reads as under: “We were married on 26.10.1997, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Pinjore. The parties were having a daughter namely Bhabya aged 7 years from the above said wedlock. The parties have not been able to reside together as husband and wife because of temperamental differences. We have been living separately since October, 2002. They have decided to seek divorce by mutual consent as their marriage has irretrievably broken down. The petitioner No.1 Yashpal Sharma has agreed to give to petitioner No.2 Happy Sharma, Rs.2,50,000/- towards future permanent alimony and maintenance of minor Byabya, who as per the agreement between the parties shall remain with petitioner No.2 Happy Sharma. Rs.50,000/- in cash have been paid before me and a cheque bearing No.724877 dated 31.8.2006 of Rs.1 Lac issued by one V.K. Sharma, in favour of petitioner No.2 Happy Sharma has been given today before me by petitioner No.1 2 Criminal Misc. No. 77642-M of 2006 (O&M) Yashpal Sharma to petitioner No.2 Happy Sharma. The parties have also decided to withdraw the cases both the civil and criminal which have been instituted or got registered by them against each other and their family members. The petitioner No.2 Happy Sharma shall co-operate with petitioner No.1 Yashpal Sharma in the petition, which shall be filed by petitioner No.1 Yashpal Sharma under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the Hon’ble High Court for the quashing of the proceedings under Section 498-A and other sections of IPC which were pending against the petitioner No.2 Yashpal Sharma and his family members.” Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Rs.2.50 lakh have been received by the estranged wife. It has been submitted that after the grant of decree of divorce, respondent No.2 is not coming forward to vouchsafe the compromise. Counsel has submitted that taking into consideration that compromise was arrived at between the parties and the fact that Rs.2.50 lakh have been received by the estranged wife respondent No.2, present petition may be quashed. Counsel has relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in ‘Mohd. Shamim and others v. Nahid Begum (Smt) and another’ 2005 (3) Supreme Court Cases 302, where, in similar circumstances, FIR was quashed. Counsel has further relied upon ‘Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agarwal’ 2005 (3) Supreme Court Cases 299 to say that where estranged wife has not come forward in Court to affirm the compromise, proceedings have been quashed. Counsel has also relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in ‘B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana’ 2003 (2) RCR (Criminal) 888. Taking into consideration that parties had obtained divorce by way of mutual consent and Rs.2.50 lakh have been paid to the estranged wife, present petition is accepted and the impugned FIR, along with all subsequent proceedings, is quashed. However, liberty is granted to the 3 Criminal Misc. No. 77642-M of 2006 (O&M) complainant estranged wife to approach this Court in case any grievance of her subsists. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE May 28, 2009 rps 4