Crl.Misc.No.M-34412 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-34412 of 2010 Date of Decision:- 29.11.2011 Ved Singh and others ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Haryana and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Rajesh Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Amit Goyal, DAG, Haryana. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.117 dated 10.6.2010 registered under Sections 498-A, 506 and 34 IPC at Police Station Gohana Sadar, District Sonepat (Annexure P-1) on the ground that registration of the FIR against the petitioners by respondent No.2-Sheela wife of petitioner No.1-Ved Singh is a total abuse of process of law especially in the light of settlement/agreement dated 28.5.2010 (Annexure P-9) entered into between the parties in the proceedings in FAO No.M-236 of 2009 which was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of the High Court. Briefly, the facts of the case are that petitioner No.1-Ved Singh and respondent No.2-Sheela Devi were married on 20.8.2006. After staying together till 20.5.2007, they started residing separately. Out of the wedlock, Crl.Misc.No.M-34412 of 2010 -2- a female child, namely, Ria was born on 20.4.2008. Because of temperamental differences, they could not continue together as husband and wife and, therefore, agreed to obtain a decree of divorce by mutual consent. In furtherance thereto, a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 was filed by petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 on 12.12.2008. On the first motion hearing, both the parties appeared before the Court and made their respective statements and consented for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of their incompatibility. The matter was again listed for second motion hearing on 12.6.2009 when respondent No.2-wife stated that she did not want to pursue the divorce petition and prayed for withdrawal of the same. In the light of the statement given by respondent No.2, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Panipat dismissed the petition on 13.6.2009. This order was challenged by petitioner No.1 by preferring FAO No.M-236 of 2009 in this Court. During the pendency of the appeal, on 15.3.2010, as the parties consented for referring the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court for an amicable settlement of the dispute, the same was referred accordingly. With the effort of the Mediator, the parties settled their dispute on 28.5.2010. Copy of the agreement/settlement is appended as Annexure P-9 with the petition. Clauses 6 and 7 of the said agreement read as follows:- “(6) The following settlement has been arrived at between the parties hereto:- (a) That the parties have agreed to live separately and have agreed to take divorce by way of mutual consent from the Hon'ble Court. Crl.Misc.No.M-34412 of 2010 -3- (b) The parties have agreed that the custody of their only child namely Ria who is two years old will remain with the mother-Sheela Devi and the father will not have any right on the daughter in future. The father will not demand any visiting right also. (c ) It is agreed between the parties that the sum of Rs.1,15,000/- (Rupees One lakh and fifteen thousand only) is given as alimony in lump sum by the husband to the wife-Sheela Devi and daughter Ria. This amount is handed over in cash today in the Mediation & Conciliation Centre in the presence of counsels and mediator. It is further agreed that this amount will be full and final settlement for the wife as well as the daughter and no further claim will be made in future either by the wife-Sheela Devi or her daughter- Ria. (d) That all pending cases if any will be withdrawn by either party and no cases under Section 498-A IPC or under Domestic Violence (sic) Act will be filed by any party. (7) By signing this agreement the parties hereto state that they have no further claims or demand against each other with respect to alimony, custody, marital status, etc. and all the disputes and differences in this regard have been amicably settled by the parties hereto through the process of mediation.” Crl.Misc.No.M-34412 of 2010 -4- After settlement of the dispute, the matter was referred by the Mediation and Conciliation Centre to the Court where respondent No.2, despite having received an amount of ` 1,15,000/- in cash during the mediation proceedings on 28.5.2010, did not appear in the Court. Counsel for respondent No.2 stated that despite various communications sent by him to the respondent-wife, she has not come present in Court. The Court thereafter proceeded to allow the appeal preferred by petitioner No.1 vide order dated 31.8.2010 (Annexure P-10). No appeal has been preferred against this order and, thus, the same has attained finality. After settlement of the dispute on 28.5.2010 and having taken an amount of ` 1,15,000/- in cash from the husband and further stating in the agreement that no case under Section 498-A IPC or under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 will be filed by any party, respondent No.2-wife filed a complaint with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gohana District Sonepat, leading to the registration of FIR No.117 dated 10.6.2010 under Sections 498-A, 506 and 34 IPC at Police Station Gohana District Sonepat, against the petitioners. It is on registration of this FIR that the petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of the same on the ground of misuse of process of law. Counsel for the petitioners submits that an agreement having been entered into between the parties wherein it was specifically mentioned therein as is apparent from clause 6(d) that all pending cases, if any, will be withdrawn by either party and no case under Section 498-A or under Domestic Violence Act will be filed by any party, the present proceedings Crl.Misc.No.M-34412 of 2010 -5- have been initiated against the petitioners which is a total misuse of process of law and is in violation of the undertaking given before this Court as is apparent from clause 8 of the agreement which provides that whereby the parties undertook before the Hon'ble Court to abide by the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement and not to dispute the same hereinafter in future. His further contention is that the continuation of the present proceedings against the petitioners is a sheer harassment being meted out to the petitioners which cannot be permitted. Accordingly, he prays for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. State of Haryana has filed a reply to the petition and has supported the registration of the FIR on the ground that the same discloses commission of the offences for which the FIR stands registered against the petitioners. Respondent No.2 Sheela Devi, who is wife of petitioner No.1 was duly served. Notice has been served upon her but she has preferred not to put in appearance either herself or through a counsel. I have heard counsel for the petitioners as well as respondent No.1 and gone through the records of the case. Facts as narrated above leave no manner of doubt that there were incorrigible differences between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 and they could not continue together as husband and wife, leading to their parting company of each other on 20.5.2007 after which they did not cohabit. Even the girl child which was born on 20.4.2008 was with respondent No.2 as she was born in the parental house of the wife and as per Crl.Misc.No.M-34412 of 2010 -6- the agreement also, she was to continue to stay with her mother and petitioner No.1 had relinquished his claim of even visiting rights. The matter having been amicably resolved between the parties as is apparent from the agreement/settlement dated 28.5.2010, entered into between the parties during the mediation proceedings in FAO No.M-236 of 2009 wherein the parties have agreed to the settlement of all disputes between them which included withdrawal of all pending cases by both the parties and further that no cases under Section 498-A IPC or under the Domestic Violence Act will be filed by any of the parties and further that they would abide by the terms and conditions set out in the agreement and will not dispute them ever, leaves this Court with no other option but to come to a conclusion that the registration of the present FIR against the petitioners is in total violation of the settlement dated 28.5.2010 entered into between the parties and further that the continuation of the same would be an abuse of process of law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ruchi Agarwal vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal and others, (2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 299 has deprecated the act and conduct of the parties who backed out from the agreement entered into between them during the Court proceedings and has opined that in such cases, the proceedings so initiated would be an abuse of process of law and were with a malafide intention for harassment of the other party. The present proceedings have, thus, been initiated with an intention not only to harass the petitioners but to put them in a situation where not only mental and financial pressure is being exerted on them but it is nothing less than violating the undertaking given to the Court, which cannot be permitted. Crl.Misc.No.M-34412 of 2010 -7- In view of the above, the present petition is allowed; FIR No.117 dated 10.6.2010 registered under Sections 498-A, 506 and 34 IPC at Police Station Gohana Sadar, District Sonepat (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. November 29, 2011 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE