CRM M 36223 of 2010 v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Sidrath Sarup, DAG, Haryana for the respondent - State Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate for complainant-respondent No. 2 -.-

2. 3. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? To be referred to the Reporter or not? Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? CRM M 36223 of 2010 2 Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) Complainant-respondent is common in all the above mentioned cases. Hence, all the petitions i.e. CRM M 36223, 26305 and 36056 of 2010 shall stand disposed of vide this common order. Vide CRM M 26305 and 36056 of 2010, the petitioners are seeking quashing of the FIR No. 338 dated 23.09.2009 registered under Section 498-A, 406 of Indian Penal Code at P S Old Sector 5, Gurgaon, District Gurgaon, whereas, in CRM M 36223 of 2010, the petitioners seek quashing of criminal complaint No. 127/09 dated 19.12.2009 under Section 3/12 read with Section 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Protection of Women under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 pending in the District Court, Gurgaon on the basis of compromise affected between the parties. Facts, in short,are that Ramandeep Singh got married with respondent No. 2 on 05.12.2003. Respondent No. 2 filed the aforesaid FIR and criminal complaint against the petitioners. Thereafter, an attempt was made by the respectable of the Society to settle the dispute between the parties. On 30.11.2010, Amarjit Kaur and Ramandeep Singh Mehru, who is husband of Amarjit Kaur, decided to settle their dispute amicably and to live peaceful without any undue pressure from any side. The said compromise was arrived at in the Court itself. Amarjit Kaur and Ramandeep Singh Mehru suffered statements before the Court in CRM M 8614 of 2010. As per the statement of Ramandeep Singh Mehru, he agreed to pay Rs.10,00,000/- by way of two demand drafts in the name of the complainant. He undertook that a draft of Rs.5,00,000/- shall be handed over to the complainant at the time of quashing of FIR as well as the complaint filed by respondent under Domestic Violence Act. He also CRM M 36223 of 2010 3 undertook that the balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- shall be handed over at the time of passing of final order granting decree of divorce. Amarjit Kaur too agreed to compromise the matter. As per her statement, she agreed that in case Rs.10,00,000/- is paid to her in lieu of full and final settlement, she shall have no further claim. Accordingly, both the parties decided to drop all the legal proceedings on the following terms and conditions:- “1. That FIR No. 338 dated 23.09.2009 registered under Section 498-A, 406 IPC at P S Old Sector 5, Gurgaon, District Gurgaon lodged by Smt. Amarjit d/o Karnail Singh shall be got quashed through Hon'ble High Court and Smt. Amarjit shall have no objection in getting the FIR quashed and shall make a statement to that effect.

2. That similarly, the criminal complaint No. 127/09 dated 19.12.2009 under Sections 3/12 read with Section 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of Protection of Women under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 filed by Amarjit d/o Karnail Sigh, pending before the District Judge, Gurgaon, District Gurgaon shall also be got quashed through the Hon'ble High Court and Smt. Amarjit shall have no objection in getting the criminal complaint quashed and shall make a statement to that effect.

3. That the complainant Smt. Amarjit shall received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from Ramandeep Singh (husband) in the court itself after the above said two matters are quashed by the Hon'ble High Court. Thereafter, Smt. Amarjit d/o Karnail Singh shall not claim any amount from Ramandeep Singh under any head or under any other provision of law.

4. That both the parties shall move an application to CRM M 36223 of 2010 4 the District Judge, Hoshiarpur under Section 13 (b) of Hindu Marriage Act to get the marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce by way of mutual consent. They will get convert the petition pending u/s 9 of H M Act to the petition 13 (b) of Hindu Marriage Act and shall take all necessary steps as required to get the marriage dissolved by way of mutual consent. Another draft of Rs.5,00,000/- in the name of respondent shall be deposited in the Court at the time of Ist hearing of the said petition.

5. That after the marriage is dissolved, the said draft of Rs.5,00,000/- shall be handed over to Smt. Amarjit d/o Karnail Singh and thereafter the parties shall have no concern with the life and estate of each other. No party shall claim anything against each other and no party shall file any other case against each other. Today, a demand draft bearing No. 002133 dated 15.12.2010 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, in pursuance to the said compromise, has been handed over by Ramandeep Singh husband of the complainant who is present in Court along with his counsel to respondent No. 2/complainant who too is present in Court along her counsel. Accordingly, learned counsel for the complainant has also filed the affidavit of Amarjit Kaur. As per the said affidavit, Amarjit Kaur has duly received Rs.5,00,000/- out of Rs.10,00,000/- from Ramandeep Singh Mehru. She has no objection if the said FIR is quashed and CRM M 36223 of 2010 (seeking quashing of the said criminal complaint) is allowed. In the affidavit, it is also stated that she has no objection if the Transfer application No. 230 of 2010 (Annexure P1) filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act by Ramandeep Singh Mehru is converted into a petition under Section CRM M 36223 of 2010 5 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act by attaching a draft of remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and the same shall be received by her at the time of granting divorce under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act. In view of the above, it is evident that the matter has been compromised. The said compromise has been entered into out of their own sweet will and without any pressure. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another-2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has observed as under:- “The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduced friction, then it truly is finest hour of justice. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the court exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.” The Apex Court in the case of 'Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab' reported as (2008)4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:- “6. We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a CRM M 36223 of 2010 6 luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” In view of the compromise as well as taking into account the allegations, affidavit of the complainant, the statements of the complainant and Ramandeep Singh suffered before this Court on 30.11.2010, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the said FIR as well as criminal complaint and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same, in view of the above settled proposition of law. The parties shall be bound by the terms of the compromise as above. Accordingly, the aforesaid petitions are allowed and FIR No. 338 dated 23.09.2009 registered under Section 498-A, 406 of Indian Penal Code at P S Old Sector 5, Gurgaon, District Gurgaon as well as criminal complaint No. 127/09 dated 19.12.2009 under Section 3/12 read with Section 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Protection of Women under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 pending in the District Court, Gurgaon and further proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. Copy of the order be placed on the connected files.

17.12.2010 (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge CRM M 36223 of 2010 7