Crl. Misc. No. M-115 of 2009 & Crl. Misc. No. M-31280 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-115 of 2009 Date of Decision: August 3, 2010 Jatinder Kumar ........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ........Respondents And Crl. Misc. No. M-31280 of 2009 (O&M) Pawan Kumar & others ........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ........Respondents ****** CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Amrik Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana. SABINA, J. Vide this judgment Crl. Misc. No. M-115 of 2009 and Crl. Misc. No. M-31280 of 2009 would be disposed of as they have arisen out of the same FIR. Petitioners have filed these petitions under Sections 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.90 dated 10.12.2004, under Sections 406/498-A of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), Police Station Fatehgarh Churian, District- Gurdaspur and subsequent proceedings thereof on the basis of statement made by respondent No.2 dated 11.3.2008 and order dated 19.3.2008. Crl. Misc. No. M-115 of 2009 & Crl. Misc. No. M-31280 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner Jatinder Kumar was married with respondent No.2 on 7.3.2000. Thereafter dispute are between them. The respondent No.2 lodged the FIR in question against the petitioner-Jatinder Kumar and his family members. Parties arrived at a compromise and their marriage was dissolved by way of mutual consent under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. After getting decree of divorce respondent No.2 had got remarried and despite various efforts the petitioners have not been able to locate the correct address of respondent No.2. However, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the statement of respondent No.2 made before the Lok Adalat (Annexure P-2) and the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer on a direction given by this Court. Learned State counsel has submitted that on a direction issued by this Court the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of respondent No.2 on 21.8.2009. As per the said statement, respondent No.2 had admitted the factum of compromise between the parties. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that these petitions deserve to be allowed. Respondent No.2 had made the following statement before the Presiding Officer Lok Adalat (Annexure P-2) on 11.3.2008 :- "Both the parties have compromised the matter in the Lok Adalat and they have agreed to dissolve their marriage with mutual consent. Petitioner Jatiner Kumar has agreed to pay a total sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- to petitioner Hem Lata in settlement of all her claim regarding the dowry articles, past, present and future Crl. Misc. No. M-115 of 2009 & Crl. Misc. No. M-31280 of 2009 (O&M) 3 maintenance. Rs. Two lacs have been paid in cash before the Lok Adalat to petitioner Hem Lata and the remaining sum of Rs. Two lacs will be paid within a period of one and half month. The period of six months may be condoned. Both the parties agreed not to file any civil or criminal litigation against each other, in connection with this marriage. All the litigation pending between the parties shall be withdrawn by the respective party.” On the basis of the said statement the decree of divorce was passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Gurgaon on 19.3.2008. Paras 3 and 5 of the said judgment read as under :- “3. During pendency of the petition, a compromise has been arrived between the parties and application on behalf of the respondent for getting direction to convert the petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act has been filed by the respondent. Thereafter a joint petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, has been filed on behalf of both parties and petition was put up before the Lok Adalat. Statements of both the parties have been recorded and as per compromise, Jatinder Kumar has agreed to pay a total sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the petitioner Hem Lata in settlement of all her claim regarding the dowry articles, past, present and future maintenance. Rs. Two lacs have been paid in cash before the Lok Adalat to the petitioner Hem Lata and he agreed to pay remaining Rs. Two lacs with the period of 1.5 Crl. Misc. No. M-115 of 2009 & Crl. Misc. No. M-31280 of 2009 (O&M) 4 months. He also stated that the period of six months may be condoned and both the parties agreed not to file any civil or criminal litigation against each other, in connection with this marriage. All the litigation pending between the parties shall be withdrawn by the respective party. In view of the statements of the parties in the Lok Adalat, the petition filed by Hem Lata under Section 13- B of Hindu Marriage Act and statements of the petition have again recorded on 11.3.2008 and Jatinder Kumar has paid remaining Rs. Two lac to Hem Lata petitioner and both the parties have also stated in their statements the period of six months be condoned because they are living separately and litigating for the last more than four years. 5. Since, the parties have compromised with each other and statements of the parties have already been recorded. Both the parties are litigating since the year 2004, the petitioner has also placed on file photo stat copy of FIR No.90 dated 10.12.204. The petitioner also placed on file photo copy of petition unde Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for resolution of Conjugal Rights. In view of the documents placed on file, litigation between the parties since, 2004 and they are living separately. Therefore, the period of six months has been condoned in the interest of justice and petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act has been accepted and marriage between Crl. Misc. No. M-115 of 2009 & Crl. Misc. No. M-31280 of 2009 (O&M) 5 the petitioner has been dissolved by decree of divorce under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act. Decree sheet be prepared and parties are left to bear their own costs. File be consigned to record room.” During the pendency of these petitions, the Investigating Officer was directed to record the statement of respondent No.2 vide order dated 19.8.2009. In pursuance of the said direction the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of respondent No.2, wherein she stated that she was married with Jatinder Kumar on 7.3.2000. She had got registered FIR No.19 dated 10.12.2004, under Sections 498-A, 406 of IPC at Police Station Fatehgarh Churian, District- Gurdaspur against Jatinder Kumar and others. Compromise was effected between her (respondent No.2) and petitioner- Jatinder Kumar on 19.3.2008 and she had received Rs. 4 lac from Jatinder Kumar. A decree of divorce had been passed and now nothing remained due towards Jatinder Kumar. Before Lok Adalat respondent No.2 had made a statement that all the litigation pending between the parties would be withdrawn. However, now the service could not be effected on respondent No.2 as the petitioners have been unable to trace her correct address on account of her alleged re-marriage. In normal circumstances, this Court would have insisted that the service on respondent No.2 be got effected. However, keeping in view the fact that respondent No.2 had made the statement before the Lok Adalat qua compromise effected between the parties and to the effect that all litigation pending between them would be withdrawn by her, it would be just and expedient to quash the FIR in question by dispensing with the service of respondent No.2. Since the parties have settled their disputes and petitioner Jatinder Crl. Misc. No. M-115 of 2009 & Crl. Misc. No. M-31280 of 2009 (O&M) 6 Kumar had paid Rs. 4 lac as lump sum maintenance to respondent No.2 and the said fact was duly stated by respondent No.2 before the Lok Adalat and the Investigating Officer also, in these peculiar circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed. The FIR No.90 dated 10.12.2004, under Sections 406/498-A of IPC, Police Station Fatehgarh Churian, District- Gurdaspur and consequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed. (SABINA) August 3, 2010 JUDGE Anand