Crl Misc No. M 25702 of 2009(O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl Misc No. M 25702 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision : December 03, 2009 Ajay Khanna and others, ...... Petitioner (s) v. State of Punjab and another, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Surender Deswal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ajay Singh Ghanghas, Addl.A.G Haryana for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. *** 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This is a petition for quashing of FIR No.45, dated 18.04.2003, registered under Sections 498-A/406/506 of the IPC at Police Station Kharkhoda, on the basis of compromise. Counsel for the petitioners states that in view of the compromise, permanent alimony has been given to the complainant (respondent No.2) and both parties have now obtained divorce by mutual consent. In her statement recorded under those proceedings, respondent Crl Misc No. M 25702 of 2009(O&M) ::2:: No.2 confirmed that she had entered a compromise with her husband (petitioner No.1) and that all differences between them had been removed, and further that she would make a similar statement before this Court in the present proceedings. Counsel for respondent No.1 has confirmed the above facts. In the circumstances, this Court is not in a position to appreciate the conduct of respondent No.2. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ruchi Agarwal vs Amit Kumar Agrawal, 2005(3) SCC 299, wherein it was held as follows :- “ 5. From the above narrated facts, it is clear that in the compromise petition filed before the Family Court, the appellant admitted that she has received Stridhan and maintenance in lump sum and that she will not be entitled to maintenance of any kind in future. She also undertook to withdraw all proceedings civil and criminal filed and initiated by her against the respondents within one month of the compromise deed which included the complaint under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act from which complaint this appeal arises. In the said compromise, the respondent-husband agreed to withdraw his petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act pending before the Senior Judge, Civil Division, Rampur and also agreed to give a consent divorce as sought for by the appellant. 6. It is based on the said compromise the appellant Crl Misc No. M 25702 of 2009(O&M) ::3:: obtained a divorce as desired by her under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act and in partial compliance of the terms of the compromise she withdrew the criminal case filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code but for reasons better known to her she did not withdraw that complaint from which this appeal arises. That apart after the order of the High Court quashing the said complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, she has chosen to file this appeal. It is in this background, we will have to appreciate the merits of this appeal.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court ultimately held as follows :- “....... 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.” Counsel for the petitioners further states that while relying upon the judgment in Ruchi Agarwal's case (supra), this Court in Smt. Sona and another vs State of Haryana & another, Crl Misc No. M 12105 of 2008, decided on 25.8.2008, also quashed a similar FIR when the wife first compromised the matter but lateron did not appear before this Court to confirm the said compromise. Crl Misc No. M 25702 of 2009(O&M) ::4:: In view of the fact that both the parties have compromised the matter and that respondent No.2 has received her istri dhan and permanent alimony and made a statement confirming the compromise, and in view of the judgments in Ruchi Agarwal's case (supra), and Smt. Sona and another's case (supra), as well as in Kulwinder Singh and others vs State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR (Crl) 1052, in my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice if the present FIR is quashed. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.45, dated 18.04.2003, registered under Sections 498-A/406/506 of the IPC at Police Station Kharkhoda, as also subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. As the main petition has since been allowed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) December 03, 2009. JUDGE `kk'