Crl. Misc. No. M- 6997 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 6997 of 2009 Date of decision: April 21, 2009 Baldev Raj ….. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ….. Respondents Present: Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. Munish Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** S.S. SARON, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.106 dated 29.11.2006 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Bilga Distt. Jalandhar for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 494 and 495 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short). The FIR (Annexure P1) in the case has been registered on the statement of Smt. Charan Kaur (respondent No.2). It has been alleged by the complainant/respondent No.2 that she was married to the petitioner Baldev Raj on 29.10.2002. The petitioner was permanent resident of England and when the Crl. Misc. No. M- 6997 of 2009 2 petitioner came from England, members of his family talked to the complainant’s uncle’s (Taya’s) son regarding marriage. The talk regarding the engagement of the complainant/respondent No.2 and petitioner took place on 25.9.2002 in the presence of brother of the complainant and her husband’s (petitioner’s) brother and his wife (Bhabi). Then Baldev Raj (petitioner) stated that he was already married and had two children but there was misunderstanding between them. The petitioner told the complainant that he was legally divorced from his wife and he now wanted to marry again. He gave two days time to the complainant to think. The complainant was called on 27.9.2002 in a hotel at Nur Mahal. Thereafter, the marriage was solemnized amongst the petitioner and the complainant/respondent No.2 at Basant Palace, Nur Mahal. Then, the first wife of the petitioner came from England. However, the petitioner showed the divorce papers and said that not to believe or listen to anyone. After marriage, the petitioner went back to England but did not take respondent No.2 as his wife. Besides, the dowry that had been given was misappropriated. On these allegations, the FIR was registered. At present, the matter has been compromised and the terms of compromise have been reduced into writing on 11.12.2008 (Annexure P2). In terms of the compromise (Annexure P2), it is stated that due to differences of their habits and way of living, the parties to the marriage could not pull on together. Due to this, the second party i.e. Baldev Raj (petitioner) did not try to take the first party i.e. Charan Kaur (respondent No.2/complainant) abroad by applying for her immigration. Besides, there were differences in temperaments between the parties even during the few days, they lived together. Now, with the intervention of respectables, relatives and friends from both sides, the dispute between the parties has been resolved. Baldev Raj (petitioner), it was agreed, shall pay a sum of Rs.8,20,000/- on account of expenses of marriage, dowry articles etc. and past, present and future maintenance of the first party i.e. Charan Kaur (respondent No.2) and on receipt of the said amount, the first party i.e. Charan Kaur Crl. Misc. No. M- 6997 of 2009 3 (respondent No.2) would have no claim against the petitioner and his family members. It is also agreed that the petitioner Baldev Raj and his family members may file the petition for quashing the FIR and the first party shall file a divorce petition for the grant of decree of divorce against second party in the Court of competent jurisdiction for getting the marriage dissolved legally. In terms of the settlement, the bank draft dated 13.11.2008 for a sum of Rs.8,20,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Birmingham Branch and valid for six months has been tendered by the petitioner in Court today. The same has been handed over to Smt. Charan Kaur (respondent No.2) who is present in Court and is identified by her counsel. The draft has been accepted by Smt. Charan Kaur (respondent No.2) and it is stated by her that she has no objection to the quashing of the FIR and that she is making the statement of her own free will and desire and without any kind of pressure or undue influence. In the afore-noticed circumstances, it may be noticed that the parties are seeking quashing of the FIR on the basis of mutual settlement. In B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 2 RCR 888 it has held by the Supreme Court that for the purpose of securing ends of justice if quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 CrPC would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. Besides, it was emphasized that in matrimonial disputes/offences, the duty of the Court is to encourage the genuine settlement of matrimonial dispute. In the present case, the matrimonial dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. The petitioner has tendered the bank draft of Rs.8,20,000/- which has been accepted by respondent No.2 Charan Kaur. Besides, she has stated the she has no objection to the quashing of the FIR. In the afore-noticed facts and circumstances, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) and also all subsequent and consequential proceedings in pursuance thereof shall stand quashed. Crl. Misc. No. M- 6997 of 2009 4 Smt. Charan Kaur (respondent No.2) shall be entitled to encash the draft of Rs.8,20,000/- and if for any reason, the same is not encashed, she shall be entitled to revive the criminal prosecution. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE April 21, 2009 amit