When a 498a quash order says ‘… financial claims were settled …’ How many lakhs / crores is that ??

There are 1000s of 498a cases where the woman takes money and happily agrees to quash. Generally the financial details are mentioned for the safety of both parties. However, we also see orders where even the amount is not mentioned !! Was it too big ? one wonders !!

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY 2013/12TH POUSHA 1934

Crl.MC.No. 3438 of 2012 ()

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

1. AJAY.G.R.
   S/O.LATE RAJAKUMAR, T.C. 1593-1, THIRUMALA P.O.
   THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2. GEETHA, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.LATE RAJAKUMAR, T.C.1593-1,
   THIRUMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN

RESPONTENTS/COMPLAINANT:

1. STATE OF KERALA
   REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
   HIGH COURT OF KERALA-682 031.
   ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.490/2011 OF
   POOJAPPURA POLICE STATION
   THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT)

RINU, D/O.DR.V.JAYAPRAKASH,
T.C. 13/731 (1), SIVAM, THARAPATHAM
LANE, KUNNUKUZHY P.O., 695 004
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

R2 BY ADV. SRI.KALLAMPALLY MANU
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.H.JASMINE

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

MNS

Crl.MC.No. 3438 of 2012 ()

APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE-I: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.490/2011 OF
POOJAPPURA POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE-II: ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT/
DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 25.05.2012.

ANNEXURE-III: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BEFORE THE NOTARY
PUBLIC BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Criminal M.C.No.3438/2012
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2013

O R D E R

The main prayer is to quash proceedings in Crime No.490/2011 of Poojappura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. Annexure-I is the copy of the First Information Report. The offences involved are under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2. The de facto complainant is the wife of the first accused and the second accused is her mother-in-law. The de facto complainant filed a private complaint which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, pursuant to which the crime has been registered.

1. It is averred that the disputes have been settled with the intervention of the mediators and others. The parties have now decided to separate and get the marriage dissolved.

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

The second respondent has filed an affidavit produced as Annexure-III herein along with Crl.M.Appln.No.62/2013. It reveals that the parties have filed a mutual divorce petition as O.P.No.1087/2011 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. In para.6, it is averred that the entire financial claims were settled and the second respondent has no objection in quashing the proceedings in the criminal case.

The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the parties have settled their disputes.http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

As the parties have settled the matter, learned counsel for the petitioners and the second respondent prayed for quashing the proceedings. They rely upon various Judgments of the Supreme Court, especially, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)] and Joshi v. State of Haryana [2003 (2) KLT 1062 (SC)].

The legal position declared therein is that even if the offences are non compoundable, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a fit case. Herein, criminal case arose only due to the private disputes between the parties. Therefore, in view of the subsequent developments, it is not necessary to proceed with the criminal case.

Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous case is allowed. Further proceedings in Crime No.490/2011 of Poojappura Police Station will stand quashed. No costs.

Sd/-

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

---

CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************

 

Hubby asked money which was illegal so dowry case! Now I took money which is perfect so case quashed!

Your honour, my husband asked me 50 thousands. That’s dowry ! that’s illegal, so I went and filed a Dowry case on him, his mother, his father and …. they were all running around police and courts… But your honour, in due course, I took 50 thousands from him. Since this 50 thousands that I took is perfectly legal, I humbly request you to quash the earlier case on “that” 50 thousands and secure the ends of justice

Amen !

Excerpts :

“….The petitioner no.1 was a drunker and smack consumer. When he comes home in the evening, he used to tease, beat up and harass the complainant. The petitioner no.1 used to ask the complainant to bring Rs. 50,000/- from her parents otherwise, ……”

“…settled their respective claims against each other amicably w.r.t. stridhan, maintenance, permanent alimony for a total sum of Rs. 50,000/- through counseling. The said amount has been paid by the petitioner no.1 ….”

---

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   CRL.M.C. 4616/2015 & Crl.M.A. No. 16551/2015

Date of Decision : April 07th, 2016

MUKESH & ORS                                        ….. Petitioner
Through:    Mr. Javed Ashraf Khan, Advocate

versus

STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)               ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State with Inspector
Ajay Sharma, Police Station
Mahendra Park, Delhi

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Mukesh, Smt. Om Wati and Mange Ram for quashing of FIR No.153/2010 dated 22.06.2010, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Mahindra Park on the basis of the settlement arrived at between petitioner no.1 and respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Sonu.

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question by Inspector Ajay Sharma.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 was solemnized on 08.05.2009 as per Hindu rites and customs. The petitioner no.1 was a drunker and smack consumer. When he comes home in the evening, he used to tease, beat up and harass the complainant. The petitioner no.1 used to ask the complainant to bring Rs. 50,000/- from her parents otherwise, he will not let her stay in the matrimonial home. The mother-in-law of the complainant also used to tease and harass the complainant for bringing less dowry. The father-in-law of the complainant also used to cause harassment to her by asking for dowry. The respondent no.2/complainant filed a complaint before the CAW Cell against the petitioners which resulted into the registration of the FIR in question. Later on, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement.

4. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the settlement, the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 settled their respective claims against each other amicably w.r.t. stridhan, maintenance, permanent alimony for a total sum of Rs. 50,000/- through counseling. The said amount has been paid by the petitioner no.1 on two occasions i.e. on recording of the statement of first and second motion for divorce by mutual consent. The respondent no.2 also agreed to withdraw her petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and also the petition under Section 18 (1) and 18 (2) H.A.M.A. There are no litigations pending between the parties and the parties agreed to not file any case etc. against each other in future after the settlement. Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end. Statement of the respondent No.2 has been recorded in this regard in which she stated that she has entered into a compromise with the petitioners and has settled all the disputes with them. She further stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:- “61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”

6. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra) are as under:-  “29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:  29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:  (i) ends of justice, or  (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

7. The inherent powers of the High Court ought to be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The respondent no.2 agrees to the quashing of the FIR in question without any threat or coercion or undue influence and has stated that the matter has been settled out of her own free will. As the matter has been settled and compromised amicably, so, there would be an extraordinary delay in the process of law if the legal proceedings between the parties are carried on. So, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.

8. The incorporation of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is meant to deal with the situation in the absence of express provision of law to secure the ends of justice such as, where the process is abused or misused; where the ends of justice cannot be secured; where the process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to avoid the causing of harassment to any person by using the provision of Cr.P.C. or to avoid the delay of the legal process in the delivery of justice. Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised to circumvent the express provisions of law.

9. It is settled law that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram Anatrai Doshi and Ors. MANU/SC/0842/2014 and in the case of Inder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal MANU/SC/0808/2009 has observed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when the Court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is not exercised, Court would quash the proceedings.

10. It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not affect public peace or tranquillity and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time and energy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in entering into compromise. In certain cases, the main offence is compoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another 2003 (4) SCC 675 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. In the nutshell, the Hon’ble Apex Court justified the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were non- compoundable. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that notwithstanding the fact the offence under Section 498A IPC is a non- compoundable offence, there should be no impediment in quashing the FIR under this section, if the Court is otherwise satisfied that the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant.

11. The Courts in India are now normally taking the view that endeavour should be taken to promote conciliation and secure speedy settlement of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs such as, matrimonial disputes between the couple or/and between the wife and her in-laws. India being a vast country naturally has large number of married persons resulting into high numbers of matrimonial disputes due to differences in temperament, life-styles, opinions, thoughts etc. between such couples, due to which majority is coming to the Court to get redressal. In its 59th report, the Law Commission of India had emphasized that while dealing with disputes concerning the family, the Court ought to adopt an approach radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings and that it should make reasonable efforts at settlement before the commencement of the trial. Further it is also the constitutional mandate for speedy disposal of such disputes and to grant quick justice to the litigants. But, our Courts are already over burdened due to pendency of large number of cases because of which it becomes difficult for speedy disposal of matrimonial disputes alone. As the matrimonial disputes are mainly between the husband and the wife and personal matters are involved in such disputes, so, it requires conciliatory procedure to bring a settlement between them. Nowadays, mediation has played a very important role in settling the disputes, especially, matrimonial disputes and has yielded good results. The Court must exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to put an end to the matrimonial litigations at the earliest so that the parties can live peacefully.

12. Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between the parties, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility and is a fit case for this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction.

13. In the facts and circumstances of this case, in view of statement made by the respondent No.2 and the compromise arrived at between the parties, the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

14. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.153/2010 dated 22.06.2010, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Mahindra Park and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.

1. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

The application Crl.M.A. No. 16551/2015 is also disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI)

JUDGE

APRIL 07, 2016

dd

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

---

CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting

---

A wife who says “father in law used to force himself on her after drinking..” takes 5 lakhs to quash case !! Delhi HC

A wife who claims all sorts of ill treatment, including that her father in law used to force himself on her after getting drunk accepts to quash everything for just 5 lakhs !! Whom should we pity now ??

The Wife initially makes very serious claims. A sample of the same can be see in the enclosed order which states “….After a week of marriage, the complainant/respondent no.2 was subjected to torture, harassment and other violence by her in-laws for not giving sufficient dowry to their satisfaction. The accused persons, committed various offences including unlawful demand of dowry, ill- treating, calling by bad names, forcing to entertain strange people, using abusive language and threatening to kill the complainant. The husband of the complainant used to beat her mercilessly. Soon after the marriage, the husband of the complainant went to Indonasia and in his absence, the mother-in-law of the complainant started to harass and misbehave with the complainant. The mother-in-law of the complainant even threw a plate full of vegetables at her face and since then she was not provided with food and she had to survive of stale food and water. The father-in-law of the complainant also used to force himself on her after getting drunk. Even during the pregnancy, the complainant was forced to do all the household chores. ….”

But suddenly when it comes to mutual consent divorce WITHOUT the kid, poor wife now accepts 5 lakhs and all complaints are quashed !! “…As per the compromise deed, it has been agreed between the parties that they shall take divorce by way of mutual consent. It is agreed that both parties shall mutually get the FIR in question quashed before this Court. It is further agreed that an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- shall be payable in two installments by petitioner no.1 to respondent no.2. It is agreed that the schedule of payment of the aforesaid amount shall be done as enunciated in the compromise deed. …..”

The custody of the kid remains with the dad though wife gets moolah !!

What should we say …. should we say “….Justice SHALL prevail !!..”

---

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL.M.C. 5047/2015 & Crl. M.A. 18870/2015

Date of Decision : February 12th, 2016

NAVEEN KALRA & ORS                              ….. Petitioners
Through      Mr. K.G. Gopalakrishnan and Ms. Zeba Khair, Advs.

versus

STATE                                             ….. Respondent
Through    Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State

Mr. Prakash Kumar, Adv. for R-2 alongwith respondent No.2 in person

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

P.S.TEJI, J.

1.  The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh. Naveen H. Kalra, Sh. Harish S. Kalra, Smt. Kiran Kalra and Smt. Pooja Darira for quashing of FIR No.161/2012 dated 04.08.2012, under Sections 498A/406/506/509/34 IPC registered at Police Station Dwarka South on the basis of the compromise deed arrived at between the petitioner no.1 and respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Manveer Kaur Anand on 25.11.2015.
2.  Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question by her counsel.http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
3.  The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 was solemnized in April, 2008 according to proper rites and ceremonies under the HMA. After a week of marriage, the complainant/respondent no.2 was subjected to torture, harassment and other violence by her in-laws for not giving sufficient dowry to their satisfaction. The accused persons, committed various offences including unlawful demand of dowry, ill- treating, calling by bad names, forcing to entertain strange people, using abusive language and threatening to kill the complainant. The husband of the complainant used to beat her mercilessly. Soon after the marriage, the husband of the complainant went to Indonasia and in his absence, the mother-in-law of the complainant started to harass and misbehave with the complainant. The mother-in-law of the complainant even threw a plate full of vegetables at her face and since then she was not provided with food and she had to survive of stale food and water. The father-in-law of the complainant also used to force himself on her after getting drunk. Even during the pregnancy, the complainant was forced to do all the household chores. On the eve of Lohri, the sister-in-law of the complainant demanded many valuable things as shagun and Rs. 1 lacs too from the complainant. In January, 2009, Mrs. Pooja Darira abused the complainant by saying that her father is a liar. In the month of June, 2009 at Delhi, the husband of the complainant again picked up a fight with her in front of her father and gave her beatings while she was pregnant. One day, the accused persons tried to pour phenyl in the mouth of the complainant forcefully. On 08.09.2011, the accused persons threatened the complainant and asked her to divorce her husband. One day, the husband of the complainant asked her to call her father and ask him to take her away. The complainant left with no option, called her father and he came to Bangalore to amicably sort out all the issues but to no avail and thus they finally left Bangalore on 16.10.2011. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the FIR in question against the accused persons/petitioners. The petitioner no.1 approached this Court for the grant of bail and the same was granted to him. Later on, with the intervention of the common friends and relatives etc. the parties reached at an amicable settlement.
4.  Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the compromise deed, it has been agreed between the parties that they shall take divorce by way of mutual consent. It is agreed that both parties shall mutually get the FIR in question quashed before this Court. It is further agreed that an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- shall be payable in two installments by petitioner no.1 to respondent no.2. It is agreed that the schedule of payment of the aforesaid amount shall be done as enunciated in the compromise deed. It is agreed that respondent no. 2 shall withdraw all the cases filed by her that are pending before the Courts concerned. It is agreed that the permanent custody of the child Jai would be with petitioner no.1 and that respondent no.2 would have visitation rights as per the convenience of both parties and the child. It is also agreed that respondent no. 2 shall have the freedom to take the child on one vacation in a year and as many thereafter on mutual co-ordination. It is agreed that respondent no.2 shall not claim for maintenance, permanent alimony or istridhan etc. from petitioner no.1 and that they both shall not stake any claim or share in the movable and immovable properties of each other or their family members for all times, henceforth. It is further agreed that they shall not file any claim, complaint or any other proceedings, civil or criminal, against each other or their family members before any Court of law or before any authority, instrumentality, forum or agency of State or otherwise with respect to any cause of action arising out of the marriage. It is further agreed that in case either party fails to appear before this Court for the quashing petitions or to execute any of the terms and conditions of the present compromise, the parties will rescind the terms and conditions and revert back to the original position as if no such terms and conditions were entered upon. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of her affidavit dated 08.12.2015 supporting this petition. In the affidavit, the respondent no.2 has stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end. Statement of the respondent No.2 has been recorded in this regard in which she stated that she has entered into a compromise with the petitioners and has settled all the disputes with them. She further stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.
5.  In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-     “61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”
6.  The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra) are as under:-
   • “29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
   • 29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
   • 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
     • (i) ends of justice, or     
     • (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
   • 29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.  
   • 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
7.  The inherent powers of the High Court ought to be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The respondent no.2 agrees to the quashing of the FIR in question without any threat or coercion or undue influence and has stated that the matter has been settled out of her own free will. As the matter has been settled and compromised amicably, so, there would be an extraordinary delay in the process of law if the legal proceedings between the parties are carried on. So, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
8.  The incorporation of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is meant to deal with the situation in the absence of express provision of law to secure the ends of justice such as, where the process is abused or misused; where the ends of justice cannot be secured; where the process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to avoid the causing of harassment to any person by using the provision of Cr.P.C. or to avoid the delay of the legal process in the delivery of justice. Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised to circumvent the express provisions of law.
9.  It is settled law that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram Anatrai Doshi and Ors. MANU/SC/0842/2014 and in the case of Inder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal MANU/SC/0808/2009 has observed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when the Court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is not exercised, Court would quash the proceedings.
10.  It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not affect public peace or tranquillity and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time and energy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in entering into compromise. In certain cases, the main offence is compoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another 2003 (4) SCC 675 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. In the nutshell, the Hon’ble Apex Court justified the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were non- compoundable. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that notwithstanding the fact the offence under Section 498A IPC is a non- compoundable offence, there should be no impediment in quashing the FIR under this section, if the Court is otherwise satisfied that the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant.
11.  The Courts in India are now normally taking the view that endeavour should be taken to promote conciliation and secure speedy settlement of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs such as, matrimonial disputes between the couple or/and between the wife and her in-laws. India being a vast country naturally has large number of married persons resulting into high numbers of matrimonial disputes due to differences in temperament, life-styles, opinions, thoughts etc. between such couples, due to which majority is coming to the Court to get redressal. In its 59th report, the Law Commission of India had emphasized that while dealing with disputes concerning the family, the Court ought to adopt an approach radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings and that it should make reasonable efforts at settlement before the commencement of the trial. Further it is also the constitutional mandate for speedy disposal of such disputes and to grant quick justice to the litigants. But, our Courts are already over burdened due to pendency of large number of cases because of which it becomes difficult for speedy disposal of matrimonial disputes alone. As the matrimonial disputes are mainly between the husband and the wife and personal matters are involved in such disputes, so, it requires conciliatory procedure to bring a settlement between them. Nowadays, mediation has played a very important role in settling the disputes, especially, matrimonial disputes and has yielded good results. The Court must exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to put an end to the matrimonial litigations at the earliest so that the parties can live peacefully.
12.  Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between the parties, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility and is a fit case for this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction.
13.  In the facts and circumstances of this case, in view of statement made by the respondent No.2 and the compromise arrived at between the parties, the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.
14.  Accordingly, this petition is allowed an FIR No.161/2012 dated 04.08.2012, under Sections 498A/406/506/509/34 IPC registered at Police Station Dwarka South the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.
15.  This petition is accordingly disposed of.
16.  Application Crl. M.A. 18870/2015 is also disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE FEBRUARY 12, 2016/dd

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

---

CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting

---

US based NRI pays 50 Lakhs to quash 498a 506 case ! How many crores per day? how many per year?

As the multi billion dollar matrimonial and dowry case industry moves on, we see case after case, quash after quash for huge settlements. Here is a case where quash of 498a and mutual divorce is accepted for 50 lakhs !

Worse still, the money paid by the husband is called COMPENSATION as if he is the ONLY wrong doer and he has to compensate the woman !! In spite of this Sad state of marriages and matrimonial legislation in India, men are queuing up to get married as if there is NO tomorrow !!

---

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 27.01.2016

CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.11911 of 2015 and 23086 of 2015

1. A.Al.Subramanian
2. S.Palaniappan … Petitioners/A2 & A3 in Crl.O.P.(MD)11911/2015

1. S.Muthukumar … Petitioner/A1 in Crl.O.P.(MD)23086/2015

-vs-

1. State Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station (South) Madurai
(Crime No.18/2015) … 1st Respondent/ Complainant in both petitions

2. M.Vallikannu … 2nd Respondent / Defacto Complainant in both petitions

Common Prayer: Petitions filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.18 of 2015 dated 11.06.2015 on the file of the 1st respondent police for offences under Sections 498(A) and 506(i) IPC and quash the same as illegal insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

For Petitioners : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy

For R1 : Mrs.S.Prabha Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

:C O M M O N O R D E R

 

1. These petitions have been filed seeking to quash the case registered in Crime No.18 of 2014 on the file of the 1st respondent police, pursuant to the amicable settlement effected between the parties.
2. It is seen that the case in Crime No.18 of 2014 for the alleged offences under Sections 498(A) and 506(i) IPC, has been registered against the petitioners / Accused. On 02.07.2015, this Court referred the matter in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11911 of 2015, filed by the in-laws of the defacto complainant to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to this Court. Since the husband of the defacto complainant has filed a separate petition in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.23086 of 2015 seeking to quash the FIR, the same has been clubbed together with Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11911 of 2015 for hearing. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
3. When these matters are taken up for hearing, the petitioners/A2 & A3 in Crl.O.P.(MD) 11911 of 2015 and the second respondent, appeared in persons and their identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the Government Advocate (Crl.Side) through the respondent Police. It was represented by the 1st petitioner/A2 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11911 of 2015 that since his son / the petitioner (A1) in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.23086 of 2015 is in United States of America, he has executed a General Power of Attorney in his favour to represent the case before this Court and a xerox copy of the said Power of Attorney dated 27.10.2015 has been produced before this Court. As per the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, a Power of Attorney is entitled to appear on behalf of the Principal, present documents and produce materials before the Court.
4. It is seen from the Mediation Report dated 19.11.2015 that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties in the Mediation Centre and the terms of settlement arrived at between them before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, attached to this Court read as under:
   • “…Both sides, out of their own volition and without any pressure or coercion from any side have agreed as follows:
   • 1.Both parties have agreed to settle the dispute amicably. The 1st petitioner (2nd accused), Son of Thiru.S.Muthukumar (1st accused) and defacto- complainant agrees to live with their life separately.
   • 2.The defacto-complainant accepts to withdraw the complaint given against the petitioners before the All Women Police Station (South), Madurai in Cr.No.18 of 2015.
   • 3.The 1st petitioner (2nd accused) Son of Thiru.S.Muthukumar (1st accused) accepts to pay the compensation amount of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs only) to the defacto-complainant. Out of Rs.50,00,000/-, the petitioner has initially paid today (19.11.2015), Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) to the defacto complainant before the Mediator. At the time of filing the mutual divorce before the Family Court, Madurai, the petitioner agreed that he would pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) and the rest of the amount of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees forty lakhs only) would be paid after six months i.e. both parties appearing for giving evidence before the Family Court, Madurai…”
5. The defacto complainant / 2nd respondent has stated that she has received the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as per the settlement.
6. In addition, the parties have also filed a common joint memo of compromise dated 20.11.2015 duly stating that since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement by way of compromise among themselves, the second respondent has agreed to withdraw the above case in Crime No.18 of 2015 pending on the file of the first respondent.
7. Earlier, this Court also entertained such request in similarly placed matters in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.406, 530 and 864 of 2016 (Prabu and others vs. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police and others), decided on 27.01.2016, by considering various decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard in several cases, namely, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana [(2003) 4 SCC 675], Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI [(2008) 9 SCC 677], Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish and others [(2015) 8 SCC 307] and observed as under: “….11. If the offences against women and children and the IPC offences falling under the categories, like, murder, attempt to murder, offence against unsound mind, rape, bribe, fabrication of documents, false evidence, robbery, dacoity, abduction, kidnapping, minor girl rape, idol theft, preventing a public servant from discharging of his/her duty, outrage of woman modesty, counterfeiting currency notes or bank notes, etc., are allowed to be compounded, it will surely have serious repercussion on the society, as the above mentioned list is only illustrative and not exhaustive…” Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences clubbed with Special Enactment, like Arms Act, the Prevention of Corruption Act, TNPPDL Act, TNPID Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity, etc., cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. As held by the Apex Court, insofar the offences arising out of matrimonial dispute, relating to dowry or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature, are concerned, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, in case the parties resolve their entire disputes amicably among themselves. This Court feels that there cannot be any compromise in respect of the heinous and serious offences of mental depravity and in that case, the Court should be very slow in accepting the compromise. If the compromise is entertained mechanically by the Court, the accused will have the upper hand. The jurisdiction of this Court may not be allowed to be exploited by the accused, who can well afford to wait for a logical conclusion. The antecedents of the accused have also to be taken into consideration before accepting the memo of compromise and the accused, by means of compromise, cannot try to escape from the clutches of law
8. Taking note of the judgments referred to supra, considering the nature of allegations and in view of the mediation report dated 19.11.2015 and the common joint memo of compromise dated 20.11.2015, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matters pending. Therefore, the entire proceedings in Crime No.18 of 2015 on the file of the first respondent in respect of the petitioners/accused alone, are hereby quashed. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties. The Mediation Report dated 19.11.2015 and the common joint compromise memo dated 20.11.2015 shall form part of this common order. However, it is made clear that the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.23086 of 2015 shall be present before the concerned Court as and when his presence is absolutely necessary. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

 

To

1. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station (South) Madurai

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. .

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

---

CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************

 

Has your wife taken the money & refused to appear quashng 498a? Use this Del HC order 2 save yourself !

In this case the wife has taken her agreed money and has refused to come to the court to quash the criminal complaint against the husband !! The Hon HC appreciates the fact that woman has taken the money and is NOT responding to repeated notices and quashes the case

Key excerpts “…... It is stated by the Petitioners that subsequent to the above order the two cheques for the sum of Rs. 4,00,000 in favor of Respondent No. 2 Smt. Anju Gupta (the details of which are set out in the order dated 5th April 2006) were encashed by her. Copies of the corresponding entries in the bank account on which the cheques were issued evidencing such encashment have been placed on record in this petition.

7. Although she was expected to join the Petitioners in filing the present petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the FIR, it appears that the Respondent No. 2, for the reasons best known to her, refused to do so…..”

The Hon HC concludes that “….13. This court cannot but accept the statements made on oath by Respondent No. 2 accepting the terms of the compromise and recorded by and forming part of the record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. She has also accepted the sum of Rs. 4 lakhs in terms of the compromise….”

 

*****************************************

Delhi High Court

Purshotam Gupta And Ors. vs State And Anr. on 23 January, 2008

Author: S Muralidhar

Bench: S Muralidhar

ORDER S. Muralidhar, J.

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) seeks the quashing of FIR No. 575 of 2002 registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden, New Delhi under Section 498A/406 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. The background of the filing of this petition is that the parties were married on 15th June 1997 in New Delhi. A child was born to them on 18th September 1998. On account of differences that developed thereafter Respondent No. 2 Smt. Anju Gupta made a complaint against the Petitioner No. 1 husband and Petitioners 2 and 3, i.e., the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively complaining of harassment for dowry and for criminal breach of trust/misappropriation. Consequently, FIR No. 575/2002 was registered against the petitioners in Police Station Rajouri Garden, New Delhi on 26th July 2002 under Sections 498A, 406/34 IPC .

3. Meanwhile in the divorce petition filed by the Petitioner No. 1 husband against the Respondent No. 2 wife was dismissed on 4th June, 2005 by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon. During the pendency of the appeal FAO No. 241-M of 2005 filed by the Petitioner No. 1 husband in the High Court of the Punjab and Haryana, the parties settled their disputes. At the hearing of the appeal on 5th April, 2006 that High Court was informed of this development and the following order was passed:

Parties have settled their disputes. On the oral request made, the original petition filed under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act (H.M. Act Case No. 41 of 5.4.2002, Purshotam Gupta v. Anju Gupta, in the Court of Addl. District Judge, Gurgaon) is converted into petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act for the grant of decree of divorce by mutual consent. Parties are present. Let their statements be recorded.

4. The statements made by the Petitioner No. 1 husband as well as the Respondent No. 2 wife were thereafter recorded on oath in the High Court. Relevant to the present petition is the following statement made on oath by the Respondent No. 2 wife before the High Court:

I married Purshotam Gupta on June 15, 1997. A male child was born out of the wedlock, who is residing with me. Since May 1, 1999, we are living separately. Now we cannot live together and pray for divorce to be granted on mutual consent of the parties.

I have accepted a sum of Rs. 4 lacs by two cheques from appellant Purshotam Gupta as full and final settlement of my claim as well as for maintenance of the child. The child would remain in my custody. On my complaint, a criminal case is pending against Purshotam Gupta and others vide FIR No. 575 of 2002, under Sections 498A/406 and 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. The criminal case is pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. I will have no objection for quashing of these criminal proceedings. I will also withdraw the Petition No. (RT) MP 1545/04/02 filed under Section 125 CrPC.

5. Thereafter on the same date, i.e. 5th April 2006, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana passed the following order:

This appeal has been settled by compromise. On the oral request made by the parties, the original petition filed for grant of divorce, Purshotam Gupta v. Anju Gupta in H.M. Case No. 42 of 5.4.2002, decided by Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, is converted into a petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Statement of the parties have been recorded. As per their evidence, the marriage between the parties took place on June 15, 1997 and w.e.f. May 1, 1999, they are living separately. They cannot live together and they have prayed for divorce on mutual consent. The same is allowed. Out of the wedlock, a male child was born, namely, Mukul Gupta, who will continue to remain in custody of Smt. Anju Gupta. For her claim as well as for maintenance of Mukul Gupta, Purshotam Gupta has tendered Rs. 4 lacs in two cheques bearing Nos. 752218, dated 25.4.2006, amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/- drawn at State Bank of India, New Delhi and 093727, dated 15.3.2006, amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- drawn at Central Bank of India, Gurgaon. On recovery of the same, Anju Gupta will not make any claim for her maintenance or maintenance of the child. She will have no further claim against Purshotam Gupta.

On an FIR registered at the instance of Anju Gupta, a criminal case is pending registered under Sections 498A/406 and 34 IPC, at Police Station Rajour Garden, New Delhi, in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. Smt. Anju Gupta will have no objection for quashing of the same for which Purshotam Gupta will move the Court concerned. She will also withdraw proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. This disposes of the aforesaid appeal with the grant of divorce on mutual consent of the parties.

Copy of the orders be supplied/given to learned counsel for the parties/parties and file be returned to the High Court.

6. It is stated by the Petitioners that subsequent to the above order the two cheques for the sum of Rs. 4,00,000 in favor of Respondent No. 2 Smt. Anju Gupta (the details of which are set out in the order dated 5th April 2006) were encashed by her. Copies of the corresponding entries in the bank account on which the cheques were issued evidencing such encashment have been placed on record in this petition.

7. Although she was expected to join the Petitioners in filing the present petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the FIR, it appears that the Respondent No. 2, for the reasons best known to her, refused to do so. This petition was accordingly filed by the husband and the in-laws seeking the quashing of the FIR aforementioned in terms of the compromise already recorded by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in its Order dated 5th April, 2006.

8. Notice in this petition was directed to issue to the Respondent No. 2 by this Court s Order dated 25th May 2006. Respondent No. 2 has been served but has chosen to remain absent from this Court for at least three hearings thereafter. Today also there is no appearance on behalf of the Respondent No. 2.

9. The learned counsel for the Petitioners states that the Respondent No. 2 was bound to honour the terms of the settlement on the basis of which the appeal stood disposed of by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 5th April, 2006. He states that since the petitioner No. 1 has have performed his part of the obligation by making the payment of Rs. 4 lakh to Respondent No. 2, she was obliged to join the petitioners in filing the present petition for quashing. He submits that in similar circumstances on at least two occasions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, while reversing orders of the High Courts declining to quash the proceedings, held that parties cannot be allowed to resile from the statements made before the Court on the basis of which a settlement has been recorded and the proceedings disposed of. Refernce is made to the judgments in Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal and Ors. and Mohd. Shamim v. Nahid Begum (Smt.) .

10.1 In Ruchi Agarwal, a compromise was arrived at between the husband and wife in the divorce proceedings before the Family Court at Nainital and a compromise deed was also filed in that court. The terms of the compromise were that the wife would be returned the entire stridhan and be paid the maintenance in a lumpsum. On this condition, it was agreed that a divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 would be granted. As a part of the compromise, it was agreed that the wife would withdraw the criminal case under Section 125 of the CrPC, as well the criminal case under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DPA).

10.2 Before the Family Court could pass an order on the basis of the compromise, the wife wrote a letter to the Family Court resiling from the compromise because she had not received the agreed amount. However, later her statement was recorded by the Family Court wherein she stated that she wanted a divorce and that there was no dispute as to the amount. She withdrew the letter written by her to the Family Court resiling from the compromise. On the basis of this statement the Family Court passed a decree of divorce by way of mutual consent and the wife also withdrew the maintenance case under Section 125 CrPC. However, she took no steps to withdraw the criminal case under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 DPA. The husband then approached the High Court for quashing the said criminal proceedings.

10.3 The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings not on the basis of the compromise but on the ground that the trial court in Nainital Rampur District had acted beyond its territorial jurisdiction in entertaining the complaint of the wife.

10.4. In the appeal filed by the wife in the Supreme Court, it was sought to be contended by her that she had been coerced into giving a statement before the Family Court agreeing to withdraw the criminal case at the time of recording of the compromise. The Supreme Court however declined to accept such an argument. While affirming the judgment of the High Court the Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings on the basis of the compromise as recorded by the Family Court. It observed: 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.

11. Likewise in Mohd. Shamim, the Respondent No. 1 wife informed this Court in the Section 482 proceedings that she did not wish to compromise the matter and wanted to continue with the complaint notwithstanding the fact that in her presence, a statement to the contrary had been recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the proceedings in that court. In view of the stand taken by the Respondent No. 1 wife in that matter, this Court had declined to interfere and dismissed the petition under Section 482 CrPC. However, the Supreme Court reversed this Court s decision after coming to the conclusion that the settlement arrived at the intervention of a judicial officer of the rank of the Additional Sessions Judge ought not to be doubted, and that the denial of the execution of the compromise deed by the Respondent No. 1 wife was clearly an afterthought. The Supreme Court observed that having accepted the sum of Rs. 2,25,000 pursuant to the said compromise, the wife could have at least filed an application in the same court returning the sum already accepted if indeed she was serious in resiling from the compromise. The appeal was allowed and the criminal proceedings quashed.

12. Reverting to the present case, acting on the compromise the Respondent No. 2 accepted the amount of Rs. 4 lakhs, accepted the divorce by way of mutual consent and also withdrew the maintenance case under Section 125 CrPC. However, for some unknown reason she chose not to join in the present petition seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 406/34 IPC. She was served in the present proceedings but has chosen to remain absent.

13. This court cannot but accept the statements made on oath by Respondent No. 2 accepting the terms of the compromise and recorded by and forming part of the record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. She has also accepted the sum of Rs. 4 lakhs in terms of the compromise. The divorce has been granted and the criminal case for maintenance stands withdrawn. Only the last bit regarding the quashing of the criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 406/34 IPC remains. With the Respondent No. 2 not appearing in these proceedings to contest the petition, the assertions of the petitioners as noted hereinabove remain uncontroverter.

14. This Court is therefore inclined to follow the aforementioned two decisions of the Supreme Court in Ruchi Agarwal and Mohd. Shamim and quash the pending criminal proceedings against the petitioners. It may be mentioned that the learned APP for the State also does not dispute the facts stated in the petition or the law as settled by the Supreme Court. He expresses no objection the quashing of the FIR in view of the aforesaid developments.

15. Consequently the FIR No. 575 of 2002 registered in Police Station Rajouri Garden, New Delhi on 26th July 2002 under Sections 498A, 406/34 IPC and all proceedings consequent thereto hereby stand quashed. The petition is allowed but with no order as to costs.