Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2598 (PNJ)

Vinod Rai v. State of Haryana

2010-09-09

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

body2010
JUDGMENT Mr. Augustine George Masih, J.:- Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of the FIR registered at the instance of respondent No.2-Smt.Gunjan Sharma, who is daughter of Sh.Raj Kumar, who is wife of petitioner No.1-Vinod Rai, son of Babban Rai and daughter in law of Babban Rai, son of Ganga Dayal, petitioner No.2 and Smt.Ram Pyari, wife of Babban Singh, petitioner No.3, wherein she had alleged that the petitioners were demanding dowry and misappropriated the dowry articles. 2. During the pendency of the FIR, the petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent was jointly filed by Vinod Rai-petitioner No.1 and Smt. Gunjan Sharma-respondent No.2 before the District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad. 3. On 20.07.2009, separate statements of the parties to the marriage were recorded, according to which, it was stated by the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 that the settlement had been arrived at between them. Vide which a total amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was to be paid to respondent No.2 regarding dowry articles and for the past, present and future maintenance, etc.. Out of settled amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- was received by respondent No.2 through draft bearing No.719116 dated 16.07.2009, drawn on Syndicate Bank, Faridabad and Rs.25,000/- was received by her in cash from Sh.Vinod Rai-petitioner No.1. It was further stated therein by respondent No.2-Smt.Gunjan Sharma, that she undertook to co-operate with petitioner No.1 in quashing of FIR No.446 of 2005 registered under Sections 498-A, 342, 406, 323 and 506 IPC and also to withdraw all other criminal and civil litigations filed against him and his family members in the meantime. Certified copy of the settlement has been produced by the counsel for the petitioners in Court. 4. In pursuance of this settlement, the present petition has been filed in Court. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents, wherein a counsel had appeared for respondent No.2-Smt.Gunjan Sharma, but despite various opportunities granted to file reply, no reply has been filed on her behalf nor her counsel or she herself put in appearance in Court today. 5. In pursuance of this settlement, the present petition has been filed in Court. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents, wherein a counsel had appeared for respondent No.2-Smt.Gunjan Sharma, but despite various opportunities granted to file reply, no reply has been filed on her behalf nor her counsel or she herself put in appearance in Court today. 5. Counsel for the petitioners states that after the statutory period of six months, as mandated under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, petitioner No.1-Vinod Rai and respondent No.2-Smt.Gunjan Sharma, had again appeared before the learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, on 24.05.2010, wherein a joint statement was recorded of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. In her statement before the Court, she had stated that she had received the full and final amount towards permanent alimony, maintenance, etc. and henceforth, none of them shall have any claim whatsoever against each other. It was further stated by her before the Family Court, Faridabad, that she had undertaken to co-operate and attend the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in quashing of the above-mentioned FIR, where the present petition was pending as has been filed by the petitioner No.1 and other family members. 6. On this basis, she had prayed for dissolution of the marriage by issuance of a decree of divorce by mutual consent. 7. A certified copy of the joint statement of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 before the Family Court, Faridabad, dated 24.05.2010 has been placed on record by the counsel for the petitioners. 8. On the basis of the joint statement given by the parties to the marriage, a decree for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B (i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was passed by the Family Court, Faridabad on 25.05.2010. Certified copy whereof has also been placed on record. 9. In view of the above, counsel for the petitioners prays for quashing of the FIR. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal, 2004(4) RCR (Criminal), 949 (SC), wherein, in similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had proceeded to quash the FIR when there was a breach of compromise, which has been entered into between the parties primarily in a matrimonial dispute of a similar nature. 10. He, on this basis, prays that the present petition be allowed. 11. Amit Kumar Agrawal, 2004(4) RCR (Criminal), 949 (SC), wherein, in similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had proceeded to quash the FIR when there was a breach of compromise, which has been entered into between the parties primarily in a matrimonial dispute of a similar nature. 10. He, on this basis, prays that the present petition be allowed. 11. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners as well as the counsel for the respondent-State. In view of the detailed factual position as explained by the counsel for the petitioners, which has been duly supported by the certified copies of the documents, which are in the face of settlement and decree of divorce passed by the trial Court, the present petition deserves to be allowed as the same is covered by the ratio of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal and others (supra). Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the FIR No.446 dated 27.12.2005 (Annexure P-1), registered at Police Station (Old) Faridabad, under Sections 498-A, 342, 406, 323 and 506 IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. -------------