Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 210 (PNJ)

Rajesh v. State of Haryana

2013-02-18

RANJIT SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - Can a person be permitted to resile from compromise after taking advantage of the same, is an issue which arises in this petition. 2. The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 15.04.2006 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi in a complaint case tilted Santosh versus Rajesh etc., whereby the petitioners stand summoned to face trial for offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC. The petitioners had filed a revision against this order, which was dismissed. The petitioners, accordingly, would pray for quashing of the order passed by Sessions Judge, Hisar as well. 3. Respondent No. 2 had lodged this complaint at Police Station Narnaund and FIR No. 172 dated 12.06.2004 was registered. After investigation, the police decided not to file a challan. Respondent No. 2 filed a protest petition and after preliminary evidence, the petitioners were summoned to face trial for the offences as already noticed. The petitioners filed revision petition against this order. The revisional Court partly accepted the revision and quashed the summoning order qua Section 406 IPC but summoned the petitioners to face prosecution under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. 4. It appears that parties, in the meantime, reached some compromise and petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 filed a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of their marriage. Joint statement of petitioner No. 1 and respondent no. 2 was recorded on 03.03.2009. Both of them stated that they have compromised the dispute and that no other case was pending in any Court of any nature and both will not raise any claim against each other in future. Incidentally, respondent no. 2 had accepted the permanent alimony from the petitioner and, thus, nothing remained due from the petitioner. Both the parties undertook to withdraw all the pending proceedings, after dissolution of their marriage. Copy of this statement has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. 5. The perusal of the petition would also show that second statement of the parties was recorded on 08.09.2009 wherein also they stated that they have settled all the disputes and have decided to withdraw the litigation pending between them. On the basis of these statements, the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was dissolved by decree of divorce on 08.09.2009. 6. It appears that now respondent no. On the basis of these statements, the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was dissolved by decree of divorce on 08.09.2009. 6. It appears that now respondent no. 2 has not come forward to make a statement for withdrawing the complaint, which was filed by her on the basis of which the petitioners have been summoned. The complaint and the summoning order was much before the date of filing of the joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and the date of dissolution of marriage on 24.02.2009. The petitioners, accordingly, have approached this Court for quashing of the complaint and summoning order on the ground that having taken advantage of joint statement, where the complainant under took to withdraw all the litigation, she cannot now be permitted to resile therefrom. 7. The joint statement, which was recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Jind on 03.03.2009, is on record as Annexure P-3. Both the parties have clearly stated therein that they will withdraw all pending proceedings. Thereafter, another joint statement was recorded on 08.09.2009, where again both of them clearly stated before the Court that they have settled all the disputes and have decided to withdraw all the litigation pending between them. That being the position, continuing the proceeding of complaint and the act on the part of respondent No. 2 not to withdraw this complaint, would be unfair and improper. 8. Somewhat similar was the situation which the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with in the case of Ruchi Aggarwal versus Amit Kumar Aggarwal 2004 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 949. In this case, criminal and civil litigation between husband and wife were pending. The parties entered into compromise and got divorce by mutual consent. The wife, thereafter, declined to withdraw the FIR registered by her under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC despite compromise. The Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the FIR by observing that the wife only wanted to harass the husband even after getting the relief. Here it is not a case of signing any statement of a compromise, which they may have been agreed outside the Court. Here, both the parties made a statement before the Court not once but twice. 9. In response to notice issued in the present petition, none has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2. Here it is not a case of signing any statement of a compromise, which they may have been agreed outside the Court. Here, both the parties made a statement before the Court not once but twice. 9. In response to notice issued in the present petition, none has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2. Obvious aim of respondent No. 2 is to harass the petitioners after taking advantage of the statement and after getting divorce on the ground of mutual consent. As per the averments made in the petition, respondent no. 2 had already received lump sum maintenance. Under these circumstances, there is no reason for the parties not to honour the undertaking and the commitment made before the Court. The terms of the compromise were agreed and stated before the Court. These statements were recorded by the Court when the divorce was granted. 10. Having obtained this relief which the respondent no. 2 wanted, she cannot now be allowed to resile from this statement and seek to prosecute the petitioner. It would be unfair now to put the petitioners to the trial for the offences when the complainant has not chosen to come forward and rely on the compromise reached between the parties of which she has taken advantage. The complaint, if allowed to continue, would only lead to harassment of the petitioners. The conduct of the respondent is also such that it is leading to an abuse of process of the Court. The criminal proceedings on the basis of this complaint, therefore, cannot be allowed to continue against the petitioners. To do complete justice, the present petition is allowed. The proceeding arising of criminal complaint No. 790-1 of 2005 dated 03.06.2005/22.05.2009 registered under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC read with Section 149 IPC before Sub Divisional Additional Magistrate and all subsequent proceeding arising therefrom are hereby quashed.