Crl. Misc. No.M-22279 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-22279 of 2009 Date of decision: October 12, 2010. Rohit Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Haryana & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri S.K. Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Kirti Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Shri N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No.353 dated 5.12.2004, registered at Police Station Mohindergarh, under Sections 498-A, 506/34 IPC and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Renu d/o Ajit Kumar, respondent No.2, was married with Rohit Kumar, petitioner No.1, on 21.4.2003. Petitioners No.2 - Shyam Sunder and petitioner No.3 – Kamlesh are the parents of petitioner No.1 and the impugned FIR was registered on 5.12.2004, copy whereof has been appended as Annexure P-1. In the FIR, it was stated that the father of respondent No.2 had spent Rs.2.00 lacs on marriage, beyond his capacity Crl. Misc. No.M-22279 of 2009 -: 2 :- and after marriage, the accused started demanding Rs.50,000/- or a motor- cycle and on account thereof, respondent No.2 Renu was harassed by her husband and in-laws. It was further stated that on 17.11.2004, the accused misbehaved with Sumit, son of the complainant, who had gone to leave Renu at her matrimonial home. In the present petition, it is stated that during the pendency of the FIR, parties agreed to seek divorce by way of mutual consent and the statement of respondent – Renu was recorded by the Court of Additional District Judge, Narnaul on 15.11.2008, which is necessary to be noticed here, as now Counsel for the respondent has stated that the compromise was not effected to facilitate withdrawal of the FIR. The statement of Renu reads as under:- “Statement of Renu wife of Rohit Kumar, d/o Ajit Kaushik, aged 23 years, household r/o Basai Khudana Mohindergarh. On S.A. I was married with the second party on 21.4.2003 at Mohindergarh. After marriage for some time I live with my husband Rohit second party in the matrimonial home at Rewari. There is no issue out of this wedlock. There arose some differences between me and my husband due to temperamental differences since the very beginning of our marriage. With the passes of time these differences became wider and wider and ultimately it became impossible for us to live together. We are residing separately since last four years and there are no chances for reunion of the marriage. All the efforts made by all family members for reconciliation have failed. We cannot live together as husband and wife. Therefore, both of us amicably decided to get a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Claims and disputes regarding dowry articles and permanent alimony is already settled by us, Crl. Misc. No.M-22279 of 2009 -: 3 :- I have not colluded with my husband in any manner for obtaining this divorce. I am making this statement voluntarily with my free consent without any force, pressure or coercion from any corner. RO&AC sd/- ADJ, Narnaul, 15.11.2008.” It is stated that in view of the statement aforesaid, vide order dated 29.11.2008 (Annexure P-4), Additional District Judge, Narnaul had dissolved the marriage between the parties under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act by way of mutual consent. In the impugned order, it has been recorded that respondent No.2 has made a statement that all disputes regarding dowry articles and permanent alimony have been finally settled. The following portion of the judgment is required to be reproduced:- “... They further stated that all the disputes regarding dowry articles and permanent alimony have been finally settled. They further stated that there was no cohabitation and reconciliation between them during the period of separation.” A perusal of the statement made by respondent No.2 – aggrieved wife in the trial court, reveals that she has specifically stated that some differences arose between her and her husband due to temperamental differences since the very beginning of the marriage and there was no chance of re-union and therefore, she has not reiterated the allegation of demand of dowry and harassment. However, furthermore, it is recorded in the statement that they have amicably decided to obtain a decree of divorce by way of mutual consent and claims and disputes regarding dowry articles and permanent alimony already stand settled. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agarwal, 2005(3) SCC 299 to state that once parties have Crl. Misc. No.M-22279 of 2009 -: 4 :- arrived at a compromise, continuation of the FIR will be an abuse of the process of law. To same effect is the judgment in Mohd. Shamim v. Smt. Nahid Begum, 2005(3) SCC 302. Both these judgments have been followed by this Court in Amit Kumar Arora v. State of Haryana & Anr., 2008(1) RCR (Crl.) 819. Since it has been stated in categoric terms that all disputes have been amicably resolved and furthermore, in the statement made before Additional District Judge, Narnaul, the respondent-wife has not reiterated the allegations of harassment and demand of dowry, this Court is of the view that continuation of the proceedings will serve no useful purpose and will be a sheer misuse and abuse of the process of law. Hence, the present petition is accepted and the impugned FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] October 12, 2010. Judge kadyan