Crl. Misc. No. 53203 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 53203 of 2007 Date of decision: July 23, 2009 Ravinder Kumar Kohli and others ... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ... Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. PURI Present: Mr. R.P. Dhir, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. K.C. PURI, J. Ravinder Kumar Kohli and others have filed this petition for quashing FIR No. 419 dated 22.10.2005 (Annexure P-1) lodged under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code ( in short - IPC) with Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Succinctly, the facts as emanating from the prosecution case are that the petitioners No. 1 and 2 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of respondent No.2 whereas petitioner No.3 is the husband of respondent No.2. The marriage between petitioner No.3 and respondent No.2 Monika was solemnized on 22.1.2004 at Navjeet Farm Una Road, Hoshiarpur as per Crl. Misc. No. 53203 of 2007 2 Hindu rites. After the marriage, dispute arose between the parties and a case was got registered by respondent No.2 against the petitioners under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC with Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur, vide FIR No. 419 dated 22.10.2005. It has been asserted that earlier also the petitioners approached this Court for quashing of the present FIR through Criminal Misc. No. 57589 M of 2006, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 8.3.2007. It is further stated that the parties had amicably settled the dispute between them with the help of respectable on 8.9.2006 vide agreement, copy thereof is Annexure P-2. As per agreement, respondent No.2 had received a lump- sum amount of Rs.7lacs from the petitioners and both the parties had undertaken to withdraw the cases registered against each other in different Courts. It is further alleged that in response to the notice issued by this Court in earlier petition (Criminal Misc. No. 57589 M of 2006), respondent No. 2 had appeared and filed reply admitting the execution of the compromise dated 8.9.2006 and also admitted having received Rs.7 lacs but she wriggle out of the compromise by stating that the agreement was for Rs.10 lacs. It was further stated that after arrival of Ram Kumar-petitioner No.3 from Italy, divorce petition would be filed. It is stated that the respondent No.2 made a wrong statement. The matter, in fact, is that she had received Rs.7 lacs from the petitioners on 8.9.2006 itself as per the terms of the agreement and on the same day petition for divorce was filed by respondent No.2 in the Court of learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur . It is alleged that though respondent No.2 filed the divorce petition but she did Crl. Misc. No. 53203 of 2007 3 not pursue the petition and the same was dismissed for want of non- prosecution, vide order dated 4.10.2007, copy thereof is Annexure P-5. Since respondent No.2 backed out from the compromise, therefore, by way of an application, petitioners approached the police for registration of the case for having cheated them of Rs.7 lacs in terms of the compromise and later rescinding from the said compromise. On the said application of the petitioners, FIR No. 10 dated 8.8.2007 (Annexure P-6) was registered against the respondent No.2 and her family members under Section 420 and 34 IPC at Police Station City, Hoshiarpur. When the case was registered against respondent No.2 and her family members, they moved a bail application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, which was declined vide order dated 14.8.2007 (Annexure P-7). Thereafter, they moved an application for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiapur, in which respondent No.2 admitted the aforesaid agreement in total and no plea was raised at that juncture that the agreement was for Rs.10 lacs. It is alleged that the petitioners have taken two different stands one before this Court stating that the agreement was for Rs.10 lacs and second before the learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, admitting the agreement in total, on the basis of which the petitioners had earlier filed the petition for quashing. In response to the notice issued, respondent No.1 appeared and filed reply by way of affidavit through Joginder Pal, Deputy Superintendent of Police, (Special Branch), Hoshiarpur and took preliminary objection that after completion of the investigation and recording the statements of witnesses of prosecution the challan in case bearing FIR No.419 dated 22.10.2005 under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC was prepared by Station Crl. Misc. No. 53203 of 2007 4 House Officer and the same was presented in the trial Court on 11.12.2006 and the charges have also been framed against the petitioners and the case is now fixed for prosecution witnesses. Denying other averments respondent No.1 prayed for dismissal of the petition. In response to the notice in the present petition, the respondent No.2 has appeared and filed reply admitting filing of the earlier quashing petition by the petitioners and also registration of the FIR against respondent No.2 and her family members by the petitioners. However, it is admitted that a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- was paid to the complainant with an assurance that balance Rs.3,00,000/- would be paid in the Court and it was agreed that pending cases would be withdrawn by both the parties. Respondent No.2 also denied all other averments and prayed for dismissal of the petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records of the case minutely. The petitioners have also placed on file the copy of order dated 22.5.2009 passed by Shri R.L.Ahuja, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur vide which divorce petition of Monika respondent has been accepted. The factum of compromise has been admitted in the written reply. Compromise has also been placed on the file. From the perusal of the said compromise, it is revealed that the matter has been settled on payment of Rs.7,00,000/-. There is nothing mentioned in the said compromise that Rs.3,00,000/- shall be paid later on. So, after receiving the amount of Rs.7,00,000/-, the complainant was Crl. Misc. No. 53203 of 2007 5 bound to withdraw the FIR under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, whereas she has been benefitted by the compromise and amount has been received. So, in view of the authority Mohd Shamim vs. Smt.Nahid Begum 2005(1) Apex Criminal 299 and Ram Lal & Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr. 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) Punjab & Haryana 823 , Court is not powerless to quash proceedings. FIR No.109 dated 8.8.2007 was registered against Monika and her family members at the instance of the present petitioners. From the perusal of the order dated 17.8.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur granting bail to Monika, it is clear that the complainant has mentioned that the matter was settled for Rs.7,00,000/- and she is ready to withdraw the petition under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC in question. . So, keeping in view the candid admission made by the complainant and totality of the circumstances, continuation of the present proceedings is clearly an abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, FIR No. 419 dated 22.10.2005 (Annexure P-1) lodged under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC registered Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed in view of compromise/agreement Annexure P-2. July 23, 2009 (K.C. PURI) sv JUDGE Crl. Misc. No. 53203 of 2007 6 Note:- Whether refer to reporter Yes/No