Criminal Misc. No. 49277-M of 2007 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. 49277-M of 2007 Dated of decision : February 05, 2008 Nirmal Sachdeva .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Ghangas, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. R.G. Sahota, Advocate for respondent no.2. RAJESH BINDAL J. The prayer made in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( for short “the Code”) is for quashing FIR No. 238 dated June 21, 2006 registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 323 IPC at Police Station, Sector 5, Panchkula and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties has been settled amicably by way of compromise which was reduced in writing. Copy thereof is placed on record as Annexure P-2. Even the divorce has been granted in a petition filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the petitioner vide judgment dated October 5, 2007 passed by learned District Judge, Panchkula. He further submits that before the learned District Judge, Panchkula at the time of grant of divorce by mutual consent, respondent no.2 on October 5, 2007 had reiterated her statement already made on March 8, 2007 in the Court to the effect that all the issues between the parties had been settled and that Criminal Misc. No. 49277-M of 2007 -2- *** respondent no. 2 will cooperate with the petitioner in getting the criminal proceedings initiated against him quashed. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mohd. Shamim and others Vs. Nahid Begum (Smt.) and another (2005) Supreme Court Cases 302, a five Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2007 (3) Law Herald (P&H) 2225 and Maninder Kaur Vs. Gurinder Singh Dhillon (2008-1) 149 P.L.R. 62. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 sought to dispute the compromise with the plea that respondent no.2 was not in fit state of mind when the statement was made before the Court and accordingly proceedings should not be quashed. Perusal of the record shows that there was a compromise entered into between the parties on January 24, 2007, which is duly signed by the parties where even the brother of respondent no. 2 had signed as a witness. Perusal of order dated October 5, 2007 passed by learned District Judge, Panchkula in divorce proceedings under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 shows that at the time of presentation of the petition on March 8, 2007, the parties made the following statement : “We were married on 12.9.2000 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Chandigarh. Out of the wedlock, a son namely Anish was born to petitioner no.2 Nandana Sachdeva on 4.7.2001. We have not been able to live together as husband and wife because of temperamental differences. It has been decided between us that our son namely Anish shall reside with petitioner no. 2 Nandana Sachdeva. Petitioner no.2 Nandana Sachdeva shall not claim anything from petitioner no.1 Nirmal Sachdeva towards present, past and future alimony. In this connection the parties have also entered into a compromise Ex. C1. The parties shall abide with the terms and conditions of the compromise. Our marriage may be dissolved by a Criminal Misc. No. 49277-M of 2007 -3- *** decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act.” Relevant para of the compromise referred to above is extracted below:- “That both the parties have mutually resolved to obtain the divorce by mutual consent and they have amicably settled their dispute and it has been resolved that the custody of the minor child namely Anish shall remain with the party no.1 and the party No.2 shall not claim custody or visitation rights in future. Similarly all the disputes qua the maintenance have been settled and it has been mutually resolved that the party no.1 shall not claim maintenance past, present or future qua herself or for the minor child. Similarly the party No.1 or the minor child Anish shall not claim any right in the immovable as well as moveable property of the party No.2 and the party No.2 shall also not have any right in the immovable or the moveable property which the Party No.1 may acquire in future. All the claims of the party No.1 qua Istri Dhan have been settled by the party no.2 and party No.1 shall not initiate any proceedings qua that in future. The party No.1 has got registered FIR No.238 dated 21.6.2006 under Section 406, 498-A, 323 IPC registered at Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula and which is pending adjudication in the court of Sh. A.D.Gaur, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula and she undertakes to get the same quashed from the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana by giving an affidavit as well as making the statement before the Hon'ble High Court after the divorce Criminal Misc. No. 49277-M of 2007 -4- *** proceedings are finalized. In case, she fails to do so, it shall be deemed that her consent has not been withdrawn qua that part. Furthermore, the party No.1 shall not pursue the aforesaid case against the party no.2 or his relative in future. Both the parties undertake to withdraw all the litigation pending amongst each other.” Thereafter on the next date i.e. October 5, 2007 when the case was finally taken up, the parties again made a joint statement before the learned District Judge, Panchkula, which is to the following effect :- “We reiterate our joint statement, which was recorded in this Court on 8.3.2007 except to the extent that terms of compromise Ex. C1 shall not be binding upon the parties. However, petitioner no. 2 Nandana Sachdeva shall not claim anything towards past, present and future permanent alimony from petitioner no.1 Nirmal Sachdeva as she has been earning about Rs. 15000/- per month while working in a SBI Life Insurance Company Limited at Panchkula. We have also agreed that our minor child Anish, aged 5-1/2 years shall reside with petitioner no. 2 Nandana Sachdeva till the attainment of majority by him. Petitioner No.2 Nandana Sachdeva shall be entitled to continue or to institute proceedings regarding the maintenance of above said child in the appropriate court. We have agreed to get divorce by way of mutual consent on the undertaking given by petitioner no.2 Nandana Sachdeva to the effect that she shall cooperate with petitioner no. 1 Nirmal in getting quashed the proceedings, which have been initiated against petitioner no.1 Nirmal Sachdeva on the complaint of petitioner no. 2 Nandana Criminal Misc. No. 49277-M of 2007 -5- *** Sachdeva, in the criminal miscellaneous petition, which shall be filed by petitioner no.1 Nirmal Sachdeva in the Hon'ble High Court in this regard. We have been residing separately since June, 2006. Our marriage may be dissolved by a decree of divorce by way of mutual consent under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act.” In Mohd. Shamim's case (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed as under:- “11. Before us, there is no denial or dispute as regards the factum of entering into the aforementioned settlement dated 14.11.2002. In the said deed of compromise it has categorically been averred that the same had been entered into on the intervention of S.N.Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. It has also been accepted that out of sum of Rs.2,75,000/-, a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- has been paid to the first respondent herein and the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- would be paid at the time of the complainant's making statement and no objection for quashing the FIR, which was retained in the Court as per the direction of the Court. It has further been averred that no dispute remained between the parties regarding the payment of dower amount (mehar), dowry articles, including the alleged jewellery gifts, etc. 12. In view of the fact that the settlement was arrived at the intervention of a judicial officer of the rank of the Additional Sessions Judge, we are of the opinion, the contention of the first respondent herein to the effect that she was not aware of the contents thereof and the said agreement as also the affidavits which were got signed by her by Criminal Misc. No. 49277-M of 2007 -6- *** misrepresentation of facts must be rejected. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we have no doubt in our mind that the denial of execution of the said deed of settlement is an afterthought on the part of Respondent 1 herein. In Maninder Kaur's case (supra) where parties to the dispute had entered into a compromise and on that basis FIR registered against the husband at the instance of wife was quashed. However, subsequently when the husband backed out of the agreement, the order passed by this Court quashing FIR was recalled and notice for civil and criminal contempt was issued to the husband. Factum of divorce between the parties on the basis of compromise is not disputed. All what is sought to be disputed is that at the time when she entered into compromise, she was not keeping well and could not understand the effect of the terms settled. Such a plea of the counsel for the respondent can not be accepted at this stage for the simple reason that it was not only compromise but even statement of the respondent recorded before the learned District Judge two times where she reiterated terms of the compromise. Once that is so, now she cannot be permitted to back out. Accordingly, considering the judgments as referred to above, FIR No. 238 dated June 21, 2006 registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 323 IPC at Police Station, Sector 5, Panchkula and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. The petition is disposed of accordingly. February 05, 2008 (Rajesh Bindal) Pka Judge (Refer to Reporter)