Sunil Kumar Yadav And Others Vs. State Of Haryana And Another
Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Bench: JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Sunil Kumar Yadav And Others State Of Haryana And Another
Law Point: Dispute between Husband and Wife settled before Mediation and Conciliation Centre and Wife has received the amount as per the terms and conditions of the settlement. FIR quashed.
Concisely, the essential facts and material, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record are that, the marriage of complainant Seema Yadav, respondent No.2 (for brevity “the complainant”) was solemnized with Sunil Kumar Yadav son of Shiv Kumar Yadav, (petitioner No.1), according to the Hindu Rites and Ceremonies on 20.01.2010 at Gurgaon. The brother of the complainant and other relatives were stated to have given sufficient dowry articles, including the jewellery and car beyond their capacity, by spending a huge amount of Rs.13-15 lacs. But her husband and his relatives were not satisfied and demanded more dowry articles. As, the parents of the complainant had already died, therefore, the petitioners-accused were stated to have demanded property of her share from her brother. She refused to oblige them. Thereafter, they insisted to bring more money from her brother. She was compelled to work as a bounden labour. They used to abuse and treat her with mental cruelty. Ultimately, she was turned out of her matrimonial home.
2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in detail, in all, according to the complainant that, the petitioners-accused have treated her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, a criminal case was registered against the petitioners-accused, by way of FIR No.328 dated 25.09.2010(Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 406, 498-A and 506/34 IPC, by the police of Police Station Palam Vihar, Gurgaon.
3. Apprehending arrest, the petitioners-accused ultimately moved an application for anticipatory bail in this Court bearing Criminal Misc.No.M-29758 of 2010 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. During the pendency of anticipatory bail, the matter was referred and was amicably settled between the parties before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, by means of agreement/compromise dated 24.05.2011(Annexure P-2).
4. Having compromised the matter, now the petitioners have preferred the present petition, to quash the FIR(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C, inter alia, pleading that they have amicably settled their disputes, by means of agreement(Annexure P-2). In pursuance of the terms/conditions of the agreement/compromise, the parties have already moved the divorce petition by way of mutual consent under Section 13-B of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the court of District Judge, Delhi, which stands allowed. They have compromised the matter with their own free will and without any kind of pressure. They will not file any civil or criminal case against each other in future. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioners-accused sought to quash the FIR(Annexure P-1) registered against them and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, in the manner described hereinabove.
5. Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial disputes, by virtue of agreement/compromise (Annexure P-2), which in substance is as under:-
“The compromise has been entered into between the parties on the following terms:-
That the marriage of Sh.Sunil Kumar Yadav and Smt.Seema Yadav took place on 20.01.2010 as per the rites and rituals of the Hindu Marriage Act. But however, subsequently some dispute in between the parties took place and they were living separately since August 2010. On the efforts were made by calling both the parties to reconciliation but all the efforts failed for reconciliation as such both the parties amicably settled their respective dispute with following terms and conditions:-
(i) There is one FIR No.328 dated 25.09.2010 under Section 406, 498-A, 34 IPC, Police Station Palam Vihar, Gurgaon has been registered by Smt.Seema Yadav(second party) against her husband and other relatives (first party). Now as per settlement the first party shall pay to the second party a total lump sum of Rs.11 lacs(Rupees Eleven Lacs Only) towards maintenance and permanent alimony and any other claim whatsoever arising out of the matrimonial alliance and property i.e. self and ancestral between Sh.Sunil Kumar Yadav one of the first party and the second party Smt.Seema Yadav. The first party undertakes to pay a sum of Rs.11 lacs to the second party. Today the first party paid Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees One Lac Fifty Thousand only) in cash which was duly received by the second party Smt.Seema Yadav and the remaining amount will be paid by way of demand drafts in three installments. They first party will pay demand draft of Rs.3 lacs to the second party on the day of recording of statements of both the parties at the time of quashing the above said F.I.R. in a Court of competent jurisdiction.
(ii) It is further agreed in between the parties that both the parties will file mutual divorce petition before the court of competent jurisdiction and before recording the statement of parties, the first party Sh.Sunil Kumar Yadav will pay a demand draft of Rs.3.5 lacs in the name of Smt.Seema Yadav. The third installment will be paid by the first party i.e. Rs.3 lacs by way of demand draft to the second party at the time of recording of final statement before the court of competent jurisdiction for mutual divorce under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act.
(iii) It is further agreed in between the parties that as two cases filed by the second party under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance and under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act pending before the Ld.Sunaina, MM (Mahila Court), Karkardooma, Delhi, will be withdrawn on dated 22.07.2011. The first party also undertakes to withdraw criminal complaint pending against brothers & relatives of Smt.Seema Yadav pending before Police Station Jyoti Nagar or any other Police Station or high authority Distt. Northeast Delhi.
(iv) That both the parties further undertake not to file any civil, criminal or any type of complaint against each other. Both the parties have agreed to fully cooperate in appearing before the courts of competent jurisdiction in all the cases which are pending or which are likely to be filed for the purpose of quashing the FIR and for the purpose of mutual divorce.
(v) That both the parties further agree that none of them shall have any claim in future whatsoever against each other arising of the matrimonial alliance between the second party.
(vi) That both the parties further agree that they shall not file/initiate/pursue any pending/further civil, criminal litigation of any kind whatsoever arising out of the said matrimony except as stated hereinbefore either against each other or their respective family members.
(vii) That both the parties have read the terms and conditions and have understood the same and have put their respective signatures giving their consent to the terms and conditions with their own free will and without any pressure of any kind whatsoever.”
First Party (1) Brahamwati Yadav (2)Shiv Kumar Yadav (3)Sunil Kumar Yadav (4)Mr.Naresh Joshi(counsel for the first party) Second Party (1)Smt.Seema Yadav (2)Sh.Gagan Yadav(brother of Smt.Seema Yadav) (3)Mr.Naveen Parkash(counsel for the second party)
6. Not only that, in pursuance thereof, the parties moved a joint-petition for divorce, in which they made the statement(Annexure P-3). It is not a matter of dispute that their marriage has already been dissolved by way of decree of divorce.
7. At the very outset, in order to end the litigation, learned counsel for the petitioners has handed over a Draft bearing No.007725 dated 24.04.2012 in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs) to complainant Seema Yadav, who is today present in the Court with her counsel, as per terms & conditions of the agreement/compromise(Annexure P-2) between the parties.
8. Such, thus, being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in this petition is, as to whether the present criminal prosecution against the petitioners deserves to be quashed in view of the compromise or not?
9. Having regard to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, to my mind, it would be in the interest and justice would be sub-served, if the parties are allowed to compromise the matter. Moreover, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that, in view of the settlement of matrimonial dispute between the parties, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context.
10. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that, the law with regard to quashing such criminal prosecution on the basis of settlement between the parties by virtue of compromise, has now been well-settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases Shiji @ Pappu and others Versus Radhika and another, 2012(1) RCR (Criminal) 9, Manoj Sharma v. State & Ors. 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 827; B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana 2003 (2) RCR (Crl.) 888 (SC) and Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, wherein it was ruled that the High Court has vast inherent power to quash the criminal prosecution on the basis of settlement of disputes between the parties.
11. The epitome of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is that the power under Section 482 Cr.PC has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and everlasting congeniality in society and resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same, unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery if the statement is fair being free from under pressure.
12. Meaning thereby, the High Court has unlimited power to quash the criminal proceedings, relatable to matrimonial disputes, on the basis of lawful settlement within the framework and restriction described by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The ratio of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is fully applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.
13. As is evident from the record that, in the instant case, the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial disputes before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, by virtue of agreement/compromise(Annexure P-2). The divorce petition moved by them by way of mutual consent under Section 13-B of The Hindu Marriage Act, has already been allowed. Moreover, the complainant has received the amount as per terms & conditions of the settlement between them. Thus, it would be seen that since, the compromise is in their welfare and interest, so, there is no impediment in translating the wishes of the parties into reality and to quash the criminal prosecution to set the matter at rest, to enable them to live in peace and to enjoy the life and liberty in a dignified manner. Therefore, to me, the impugned FIR(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, deserve to be quashed in this relevant behalf.
14. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No.328 dated 25.09.2010(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed and the petitioners- accused are accordingly discharged, from the indicated criminal case in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
April 30, 2012 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR)
Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes/No
Criminal Misc.No.M-28551 of 2011
Present: Mr.Naresh K.Joshi, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.Kartar Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1-State.
Mr.Naveen Parkash, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
**** At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has handed over a draft bearing No.007725 dated 24.04.2012, in the sum of Rs.3 lacs (Rupees Three Lacs) to complainant-Seema Yadav, who is today present in the Court along with her counsel, in view of settlement(Annexure P-2).
Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that, in view of the agreement/compromise(Annexure P-2) between the parties, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context. Vide my separate detailed judgment of the even date, the instant petition has been accepted, on the basis of agreement/compromise(Annexure P-2) and the impugned FIR(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, have been quashed.