Crl.Misc.No.M-32953 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Misc.No.M-32953 of 2008 Date of decision: 21.10.2009 Jasmer Singh ... Petitioner versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and another ... Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr.G.S.Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.D.D.Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ... JORA SINGH, J. Jasmer Singh filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.222 dated 20.9.2005 under Sections 406/498-A IPC registered at Police Station Sector 31, Chandigarh, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3). Notice of motion was issued to the respondents. UT, Chandigarh, appeared through counsel. Vide order dated 29.7.2009, learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to produce respondent No.2 in Court, if there is any compromise, and the case was adjourned to 10.9.2009. On 10.9.2009, respondent No.2 Amarjit Kaur wife of petitioner Jasmer Singh was not produced. Again learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to produce respondent No.2 in Court on the next date of hearing, i.e., 21.10.2009. But again on 21.10.2009, respondent No.2 was not produced. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petition under Crl.Misc.No.M-32953 of 2008 2 Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act was instituted and the same was accepted vide judgment dated 4.9.2008 (Annexure P-2). Amarjit Kaur, respondent No.2, also filed her affidavit (Annexure P-3), but at this stage, she is not appearing to make her statement qua compromise. Main petition is for quashing of FIR No.222 dated 20.9.2005 on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-30, whereas in the State case, respondent No.2 had appeared as prosecution witness on 17.9.2007. While appearing as PW, Amarjit Kaur, respondent No.2, had fully supported the prosecution story. Now the question is whether copy of the affidavit (Annexure P-3) is of Amarjit Kaur or some body else. Original affidavit was not attached. Only typed copy of the affidavit without signatures of the deponent was attached. Annexure P-2 is the copy of the judgment dated 4.9.2008 under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short `the Act’). But in the judgment, no reference of the present FIR No.222 dated 20.9.2005 under Sections 406/498-A IPC. In case parties have effected compromise and Amarjit Kaur gave her affidavit dated 11.12.2008 (Annexure P-3), then in the State case, affidavit (Annexure P-3) could easily be produced. In view of the affidavit, an application could be given to the Court that there is a compromise amongst the parties. There is a possibility of producing some other lady posing herself as Amarjit Kaur for the decision of the petition under Section 13-B of the Act. In 2005(3) SCC 299, Ruchi Agrawal vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that civil and criminal litigation between husband and wife. There is a compromise amongst the parties and parties getting divorce by mutual consent. Wife not withdrawing the FIR despite Crl.Misc.No.M-32953 of 2008 3 compromise. FIR is quashed. In AIR 2005 (SC) 757, Mohd. Shamim vs. Smt. Nahid Begum, FIR was under Sections 498-A/406 IPC. Parties entering into settlement. Wife accepted Rs.2,25,000/- and another sum of Rs.50,000/- to be paid at the time of quashing of the FIR- Petition for quashing of FIR- Wife backed out and stated that agreement and affidavit were got signed by misrepresentation-FIR was quashed because in view of the conduct of the wife, continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. No doubt about the law laid down in the above cited authorities, but the same are not helpful to the petitioner. Criminal case is pending against the petitioner and if there was a compromise amongst the parties and Amarjit Kaur gave her affidavit dated 11.12.2008, then application should have been given to the trial Court to the effect that there is a compromise amongst the parties. In the present case, despite direction to the petitioner to produce respondent No.2 Amarjit Kaur in Court in support of the compromise, Amarjit Kaur was not produced. Affidavit (Annexure P-3) alleged to have been executed by Amarjit Kaur is dated 11.12.2008. Decree of divorce is dated 4.9.2008, whereas petition for quashing of FIR was instituted in the month of December, 2008. As per decree of divorce by way of mutual consent, nothing was paid to Amarjit Kaur. When petition under Section 13-B of the Act was instituted in the month of March, 2008, then petition for quashing of the FIR should have been filed immediately. Amarjit Kaur could easily be produced in the Court to state that there is a compromise and she has no objection to quash the FIR. But after the decision of the petition Crl.Misc.No.M-32953 of 2008 4 under Section 13-B of the Act on 4.9.2008, petition for quashing of FIR was instituted in the month of December, 2008. So all these facts show that the petitioner cannot argue that there is a compromise to quash the FIR or as per compromise, some payment was made to Amarjit Kaur. Due to non-appearance of complainant Amarjit Kaur, no question of quashing FIR No.222 dated 20.9.2005. Petition being without merit is dismissed. 21.10.2009 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE