IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-9966 of 2011 Date of Decision:25.4.2011 Shashi Kaushik and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sidharth Sarup, D.A.G. Haryana. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.8 dated 6.1.2003 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC Police Station Chandni Bagh, District Panipat and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. Petitioner No.1 namely Shashi Kaushik is the husband, petitioner No.2 namely Usha Kaushik is mother-in-law and petitioner No.3 namely Arun Kaushik is brother-in-law (Jeth) of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 lodged FIR No.8, dated 6.1.2003 under Sections 498-A, 406, 34 IPC Police Station Chandni Bagh, District Panipat against the petitioners. Petitioner No.1 filed divorce petition against respondent No.2 before District Judge, Delhi and the learned Addl. District Judge (North), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, granted decree of divorce in favour of petitioner No.1 on 15.12.2009. Respondent No.2 filed an appeal against the said CRM M-9966 of 2011 -2- judgment. However, the matter was settled and an agreement dated 24.3.2011 (Annexure P-3) was arrived at between the parties before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Delhi High Court. In pursuance to the settlement, respondent No.2 even withdrew her appeal challenging the order of Addl. District Judge, Delhi. It was decided between both the parties that respondent No.2 will receive an amount of Rs.5 lacs as full and final settlement towards maintenance and permanent alimony and all other claims arising out of the marriage a nd after that she will not claim anything from the petitioners. It was further agreed between both the parties that respondent No.2 has no objection if the present FIR registered against the petitioners is quashed as the matter has been settled between the parties. The copy of settlement dated 24.3.2011 before Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Delhi High Court is placed on record as P-3. Accordingly, notice of motion was issued. Mr. Ajay Singh, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.2 appeared and accepted the notice on behalf of respondent No.2. He did not dispute that the matter has been compromised. However, time was granted to file the affidavit of the complainant. The parties were also directed to be present in the Court and the matter was adjourned to enable the complainant to file her affidavit. Today i.e. 25.4.2011, neither the counsel for respondent No.2 nor respondent No.2 is present and nor any affidavit has been filed. However, it is evident from the following facts that the matter is indeed compromised: (a) Reply has been filed by the State. Paras 7 and 8 of the said reply read as under: “ 7. That the contents of para No.7 of the writ petition as CRM M-9966 of 2011 -3- well as the contents of Annexure P-3 are denied for want of knowledge only to the extent that the parties were realized that they could not live together under one roof and could not have to happy matrimonial life, therefore they decided to get separated from each other and therefore, they reached to the settlement/agreement on 24.3.2011 and according to which respondent No.2 withdrew her case of appeal challenging the order of Addl. District Judge, Delhi. It was decided between both the parties that respondent No.2 will receive an amount of Rs.5 lacs as maintenance, permanent alimony, Istridhan and any other claims arising out of the marriage and after that she will not claim anything from the petitioners. In reply to the rest of the para it is submitted that FIR No.8 dated 6.1.2003 was registered on the statement of respondent No.2 (Vanita Sharma) and the same is pending in the Court of Sh. R.K. Mehta, Ld. J.M.I.C Panipat for 30.4.2011 for prosecution evidence. 8.That the contents of Para No.8 of the petition is admitted as correct being matter of record and information gathered from respondent No.2-Vanita Sharma. Respondent No.2- Vanita Sharma has no objection if the FIR is quashed only after the payment of Rs.2,50,000/- to her by petitioner No.1.” (b) Petitioner No.1 had filed divorce petition against respondent No.2 before District Judge, Delhi and the learned Addl. District Judge CRM M-9966 of 2011 -4- (North), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, granted decree of divorce in favour of petitioner No.1 on 15.12.2009. Dissatisfied with the order passed by learned Addl. District Judge (North), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, respondent No.2 filed appeal in Delhi High Court, where the matter was sent for settlement between both the parties, to Mediation Centre. In pursuance to the said compromise, respondent No.2 withdrew her case of appeal challenging the order of Addl. District Judge, Delhi. (c) One of the terms and conditions of the compromise was that the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to respondent No.2 in two equal installments of Rs.2,50,000/- each by way of demand draft. The first installment shall be paid by the petitioner to respondent No.2 at the time of withdraw of MAT APP. No.40/2010 and the second installment shall be paid at the time of quashing of FIR No.8/2003 dated 3.1.2003. Since respondent No.2 has already withdrawn her case of appeal challenging the order of the learned Addl. District Judge (North), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby decree of divorce was granted in favour of petitioner No.1 on 15.12.2009. There is no doubt that the petitioner had already paid Rs.2,50,000/- as first instalment in pursuance to the said compromise. (d) Today, the petitioner has brought with him a draft bearing No.053160 amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- as second instalment while praying for quashing of the FIR. The same be kept in the safe custody of Registrar of this Court. (e) No one has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 to contest the present petition, therefore, agreement dated 24.3.2011 arrived at between the parties has not been disputed before this Court. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Shamimv. CRM M-9966 of 2011 -5- Nahid Begum 2005 (0) AIJEL-SC 18056 while relying on the judgment rendered in the case of Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal and others 2004 (8) Supreme 525 held in paras 15 and 16 as under: “15. This Court in Ruchi Aggarwal v. Amit Kumar Aggarwal and others 2004 8 Supreme 525, in almost a similar situation has quashed a criminal proceedings against the husband, stating: “ ... Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant having received the relief she wanted without contest on the basis of the terms of the compromise, we cannot now accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, the conduct of the appellant indicates that the criminal complaint from which this appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the respondents. 8. In view of the above said subsequent events and the conduct of the appellant, it would be an abuse of the process of the Court if the criminal proceedings from which this appeal arises is allowed to continue.” 16. In view of the conduct of the First Respondent in entering into the aforementioned settlement, the continuance of the criminal proceeding pending against the Appellants, in our opinion, in this case also, would be an abuse of the process of the Court. The Appellant No.1, however, would be entitled to withdraw the sum of Rs.50,000/- which has been deposited in the Court. We, therefore, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Art. 142 of the Constitution of India direct that the impugned judgment CRM M-9966 of 2011 -6- be set aside. The First Information Report lodged against the appellants is quashed. The Appeal is allowed. However, this order should not be treated as a precedent.” The facts of the present case are almost similar. Moreover, the factum of compromise has also not been disputed. Thus, allowing the proceedings to continue in the facts of the present case is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.8 dated 6.1.2003 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC Police Station Chandni Bagh, District Panipat and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. However, respondent No.2 is at liberty to withdraw the draft bearing No.053160 amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- as second instalment so deposited by the petitioner in pursuance to the compromise, which has been ordered to be kept in the safe custody of Registrar of this Court. 25.4.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE