IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.M.M.O. No.103 of 2010. Date of decision: 14.07.2010. Het Ram … …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. … …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.Rupinder Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the `Code’) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying that the order dated 31.3.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, dismissing the revision petition under Section 397 of the Code filed by the petitioner herein, refusing permission under Section 321 of the Code for withdrawal from prosecution, be quashed and set aside. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 2. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at length. 3. Learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ruchi Agarwal vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal, 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 611 (S.C.). He submits that since the report before the learned Court below was that the parties are patching up and that the continuance of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the revision petition requires to be accepted. In particular, he places reliance on paragraphs 7 and 8 of the judgment which reads:- “7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, however, contended that though the appellant had signed the compromise deed with the above- mentioned terms in it, the same was obtained by the respondent-husband and his family under threat and coercion and in fact she did not receive lump sum maintenance and her Stridhan properties, we find it extremely difficult to accept this argument in the back-ground of the fact that pursuant to the compromise deed the respondent-husband has given her a consent divorce which she wanted thus had performed his part of the obligation under the compromise deed. Even the appellant partially performed her part of the obligation by withdrawing her criminal complaint 3 filed under Section 125. It is true that she had made a complaint in writing to the Family Court where Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings were pending that the compromise deed was filed under coercion but she withdrew the same and gave a statement before the said court affirming the terms of the compromise which statement was recorded by the Family Court and the proceedings wee dropped and a divorce was obtained. 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. From the order of the learned Sessions Judge, what I find is that the parties are staying separately and they have not patched up. This was also stated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge. In these circumstances, no interference is called for in the order of the learned Sessions Judge. 5. It is clarified that in case the parties compromise the matter in any manner, the learned Court below will consider the case afresh in the light of the 4 judgment in Ruchi Agarwal’s case. Liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the learned trial Court in accordance with law. Petition is disposed of. July 14, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.