Crl. Misc. No. M-35322 of 2010 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-35322 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.7.2011. Sudhir Sapra and others ........Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Maninder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. G.S.Brar, Asstt. A.G., Punjab for respondent No.1 and 2. None for respondent No.3. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short) for quashing of the FIR No. 99/2006 dated 18.4.2006 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 406, 498-A, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station City Khanna and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of settlement between the parties. Notice of motion was issued in this case for 3.2.2011. Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate had appeared on behalf of respondent No.3. Howerver, thereafter, none has appeared on behalf of respondent No.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted Crl. Misc. No. M-35322 of 2010 (O&M) -2 - that in the present case, the FIR was lodged by respondent No.3 Aarti Sapra under Sectionis 406, 498-A IPC. Complainant had also filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Petitioner had also lodged an FIR No. 431/1 dated 2.12.2006 under Sections 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC. Thereafter, a compromise was arrived at between the parties. In terms of the compromise, respondent No.3 had received ` 3,50,000/- from the petitioners. The marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No. 3 has been dissolved under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act' for short) on the basis of mutual consent. Hence, it has been prayed that the FIR in question was liable to be quashed in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties. Learned state counsel has denied the knowledge qua the compromise effected between the parties. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. The petitioners have sought quashing of the FIR in question on the basis of compromise effected between the parties. In normal circumstances, FIR on the basis of compromise is quashed in a case, where the respondent/complainant appears and admits the factum of compromise. In the present case, respondent No. 3 had initially appeared through her counsel but thereafter, has refrained from appearing in the court. Affidavit of respondent No. 3 has been placed on record as Annexure P-5, wherein she has stated that in view of Crl. Misc. No. M-35322 of 2010 (O&M) -3 - the compromise effected between the parties, she has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed. Certified copy of the statement made by respondent No.3 in petition under Section 13-B of the Act has been placed on record and the same reads as under:- “Statement of Aarti, aged about 28 years, w/o Sudhir Sapra, d/o Rajinder Batra, r/o 10/377, Kapila Street, Khanna on SA, along with counsel Sh. S.S. Atwal, Adv. That I and petitioner no.2 jointly filed petition u/s 13-B of HMA for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce with mutual consent. I earlier recorded my statement at the time of presentation of the petition on 17.5.2010 and I stand by with my earlier statement recorded on 17.5.2010. Even after the lapse of six months there is no chance of reconciliation. We are living separately since Dec. 2005. I have already received my dowry articles and Istri Dhan from petitioner No.2 along with amount of my permanent alimony as well as for the daughter of the parties and today I have received a demand draft amounted to Rs. 3,50,000/- bearing no. 037479 drawn on Corporation Bank and now nothing is due or outstanding against him and his family members. We have not lived together or co-habited after filing of present petition. Nothing is due against each other. The decree of divorce with mutual consent may kindly be passed as prayed for. The compromise is Crl. Misc. No. M-35322 of 2010 (O&M) -4 - Ex.C1 which is again affirm as correct. The daughter will remain in my custody. The petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed by me stands already dismissed The petition bear my photographs upon which I have appended my signatures.” On 22.11.2010, following order was passed by the trial court in the divorce proceedings:- “Succinctly, Petitoiners' marriage was solemnized on 15.2.2004. After the marriage, they could not adjust each other due to temperamental andother differences. Tension prevailed between them. Efforts for reconciliation by the respectables remained futile. They are residing separate from each other since the December, 2005. There are no chances of rehabilitation. They have sorted out their other issues. Hence, the present petition is moved for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent. 2. On presentation of the petition, statements of petitioners were recorded. Six month's statutory period was granted to the petitioners for reconciliation, if any. 3. On expiry of said period, petitioners appeared on 19.11.2010, and reiterated their resolve for dissolution of their marriage. They suffered statements that they could not pull on together as husband and wife. Even during the period of last six months, they did not reside together. They prayed for dissolution of their marriage. Crl. Misc. No. M-35322 of 2010 (O&M) -5 - 4. I have heard the petitioners and perused the record of the file. 5. I am satisfied that there are no chances of petitioners reconciling and co-habiting together as husband and wife. There is nothing to show that there is any collusion between the petitioners. Their statements appear to be voluntary. There is no bar in granting the decree. 6. The petition is accordingly allowed and decree of divorce by mutual consent is granted by dissolving the marriage of the petitioners with effect from today. The petitioners shall remain bound by their statements recorded in the court on 17.5.2010 and 19.11.2010. Counsel fee is assessed to be Rs. 1000/- each. 7. Decree sheet be prepared. 8. File be consigned to record room. ” Certified copy of the compromise (Ex.C-1), in divorce proceedings, has been placed on record and para 5 clause (6) of the same reads as under:- “That as per compromise the party of Ist part shall withdraw her petition filed U/s 125 of Cr.P.C. against the party of IInd Part titled as “Aarti Sapra V/s Sudhir Sapra” as well as application U/s 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 filed by the party of Ist part against the party of IInd part titled as “Aarti Sapra V/s Sudhir Sapra & others”, both pending before the court of Sub- Crl. Misc. No. M-35322 of 2010 (O&M) -6 - Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna, and FIR No. 99 dated 18.4.06 U/s 406, 498-A, 506 IPC, P.S. City, Khanna. The party of Ist Part has agreed that she will get cancel/quash FIR No. 99 dated 18.4.06 U/s 406, 498-A, 506 IPC, P.S. City, Khanna got registered against Party of IInd Part and his family members. That for this purpose, the parties to the compromise shall file a joint petition for quashing of the FIR either before the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna by getting the offences compounded and if need be before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh and Party of Ist Part will appear in person before the High Court or court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna as the case may be, to sign the petition and to make statement for quashing of FIR if need be. That party of IInd part shall also withdraw criminal complaint No. 431/1 dated 02.12.06 titled as “Sudhir Sapra V/s Rajinder Batra & others” U/s 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Sultanpur (U.P.) pending in the court of C.J.M., Ludhiana. ” From the above documents on record, it is evident that the parties had arrived at a compromise. Since respondent No.3 has not appeared to deny the contents of her affidavit, a presumption arises that the said affidavit (Annexure P-5) was genuinely executed by her. As the parties have been granted a decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent in terms of the compromise, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the Crl. Misc. No. M-35322 of 2010 (O&M) -7 - petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 99/2006 dated 18.4.2006 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 406, 498-A, 506, 34 IPC registered at Police Station City Khanna, and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 25, 2011 Gurpreet