IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 37413 of 2010 Date of decision: 22.11.2011 Jarnail Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 4 dated 07.04.2010 lodged by respondent No. 2 against them for offences under Sections 498-A/406 IPC, J.S. Jhander, District Amritsar. Petitioner No. 1 is father-in-law of the complainant whereas petitioner No. 2 is husband of the complainant. As per the allegations made in the FIR, the marriage of the complainant with petitioner No. 2 was performed on 20.05.2008. The complainant submits that her parents had spent money on the marriage beyond their capacity. List of dowry articles was also enclosed with the FIR. It is alleged that the petitioners and the other relatives were not happy with the dowry given by the parents of the complainant. Her mother-in-law Bachan Kaur, Jethani Soni and Nanad Nindo started taunting the complainant for not bringing dowry according to their expectation. The accused claimed that whatever Crl. Misc. No. M- 37413 of 2010 -2- was given was not good and they felt ashamed in the society. As per the allegation, the complainant was asked to bring motorcycle and T.V. for the husband if she wanted to live in the matrimonial house. The complainant would further allege that she tolerated all this humiliation thinking that their behavior will improve but nothing changed. It is alleged that the in-laws family had belief about some evil spirit which they carried for which they look treatment. Similarly all such allegations of getting sum of ` 50,000/- and beating etc. are also made. It is a long drawn FIR, attributed various roles, containing demand of dowry like, motorcycle, T.V., cash of ` 50,000/-. The FIR was, accordingly, got registered. The petitioner would contest the validity of this FIR on the ground that before the dispute arose in this case, the complainant had made an application to the police on 15.12.2009. During this time, the settlement was reached between the parties that they agreed to settle their dispute. It is stated that the complainant had willingly accepted sum of ` 50,000/- as permanent alimony alongwith dowry articles and had also agreed for divorce on the basis of mutual consent. This statedly took place before the Panchayat. Separate statement of respondent No. 2 was recorded and on the basis of this DSP, Attari has submitted his report that no action is required in view of this compromise. The grievance now raised in this petition is that even after settlement of the disputes, the FIR has been registered primarily because the copy of complainant was sent to the Commission and Crl. Misc. No. M- 37413 of 2010 -3- the matter was then referred to DA(L) who recommended that case for submitting report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is made out. As per the petitioners, this was done without appreciating the background and facts of the case that the matrimonial dispute stood settled. Thus, the primary plea of the petitioners is only on the basis of settlement. It is urged that once the complainant had settled the dispute and had received the permanent alimony, the registering of FIR would be an abuse of process of Court. Parties may have compromised at one stage but the respondents are now not appearing in support of this compromise. The State has filed a reply. The finding by the police is that the signatures of the complainant was obtained on this compromise forcibly. There will be, thus, a serious dispute whether this compromise, which is relied upon by the petitioners, is genuine one and duly signed by the complainant. Even if the dispute had been resolved by compromise at one stage, the complainant cannot be forced to agree for a compromise if she have had a change of mind being aggrieved against some cause or the other. Since there is a dispute in regard to the genuineness of this compromise, which is mainly relied upon by the petitioners, it would not be appropriate for this Court to invoke jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing this FIR. Even otherwise, if the aim was to rely on compromise then the complainant ought to have been made to appear before the Court and this compromise could have been then considered. The compromise, which is disputed by the complainant, cannot be taken into consideration for quashing the FIR that too when finding of the Crl. Misc. No. M- 37413 of 2010 -4- investigating agency is that the signatures of the said compromise was obtained forcibly. No case for quashing the FIR, therefore, is made out. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed. November 22, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE