Criminal Misc. No. M-5892 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-5892 of 2008 Date of Order: 08.04.2008 Sanjiv Kapila @ Bobby & Others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and Others ...Respondents Criminal Misc. No. M-6800 of 2008 Rekha Rani ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & Another. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. R.K.Singla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. A.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab. Mr. R.S.Sihota, Senior Advocate with Mr. H.P.S.Ishar, Advocate. RAJESH BINDAL J. This order will dispose of two petitions bearing Criminal Misc. No. M-5892 of 2008 and Criminal Misc. No.M-6800 of 2008. The facts have been taken from Criminal Misc. No.M-5892 of 2008. The prayer in the present petition is for quashing of FIR No.29, dated 29.03.2003 registered against the petitioners under Sections 406/498-A/34 IPC. The petitioners in the petition are husband, mother-in-law and married sister of petitioner no.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the entire dispute between the parties have been settled and in fact on the basis Criminal Misc. No. M-5892 of 2008 -2- thereof a petition for divorce filed under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), divorce has also been granted by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phillaur. Reference has been made to the statement made in the petition filed under Section 13 B of the Act for divorce by mutual consent where it was specifically mentioned that petitioner No.1 shall pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- in lump sum to respondent no.2-complainant for maintenance of the minor child namely Radhika and the respondent no.2-complainant will not claim any type of maintenance from the petitioner in future. It is further stated that both the parties have settled all type of claims against each other. The custody of the child was to remain with respondent no.2- complainant. It was further agreed that both the parties will withdraw cases/complaints filed against each other after getting the divorce. In the statement of respondent No.2-complainant recorded before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phillaur on 16.07.2007, the stand taken in the petition filed under Section 13 B of the Act was reiterated. Similar is the position in the statement made by petitioner no.1. Thereafter, in the subsequent statement of respondent No.2- complainant recorded by the Court below on 20.02.2008, the statement earlier made on 16.07.2007 was reiterated. It is further stated therein that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was received by respondent No.2-complainant for maintenance of the minor child. On the same date a decree of divorce by mutual consent was passed by the Court below. On the same date, statement was made by respondent No.2-complainant in the petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance to withdraw the same as compromised as the amount had already been received by her. On the basis thereof, the petitions filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance of respondent no.2-complainant and the minor child Radhika were dismissed as withdrawn. Even in the FIR in question, the statement Criminal Misc. No. M-5892 of 2008 -3- of respondent No.2-complainant was recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phillaur on 20.02.2008 stating therein that the matter has been compromised between the parties and now she has no grudge against the accused and she has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed. From the perusal of the contents of petition filed under Section 13 B of the Act and statements made before the Court, it is clear that the parties had agreed to withdraw the cases filed against each other as the dispute has been settled finally. Relying upon the aforesaid material, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once all the disputes between the parties have already been settled, the FIR in question deserves to be quashed. On the other hand, respondent No.2-complainant submitted that the terms settled between the parties are totally unreasonable on the face of it as merely a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been paid for the maintenance of the minor daughter born out of the wedlock and accordingly the FIR should not be quashed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. Once at her own sweet will and without their being any pressure, respondent No.2- complainant had stated before the Court at the time of filing the petition under Section 13 B of the Act for divorce by mutual consent that all the disputes between the parties have been settled and got her statements recorded on various dates in divorce proceedings as well as in proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., now she cannot be permitted to backout therefrom. In addition to this, even in the proceedings before the learned Magistrate in the FIR in question also the petitioner had stated that she has no objection in case the complaint against the petitioner is cancelled. Petitioner No.1 was present in the court. Learned counsel Criminal Misc. No. M-5892 of 2008 -4- appearing for him has been able to pursuade him to give some more money to her ex-wife and child and accordingly it is undertaken that another sum of Rs.20,000/- shall be paid by the petitioner to respondent No.2 on or before May 17, 2008. In view of the statements of the parties to the dispute as referred to above, the FIR in question and all subsequent proceedings thereto against the petitioners are quashed. However, the same shall be subject to the condition of payment of Rs.20,000/- to the respondent No.2 complainant as undertaken by the petitioner. 8th April, 2008. (RAJESH BINDAL) asija JUDGE.