Husband pays 5 lakh Ransom. 498 A quashed Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shiv Raj Sangrai vs State Of Haryana on 20 December, 2011
CRM-M-37406-2011 [1] CRM-M-34305-2011 CRM-M-35315-2011
::::::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(1) CRM-M-37406-2011 Date of decision:20.12.2011
Shiv Raj Sangrai and others ...Petitioners Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
(2) CRM-M-34305-2009 Date of decision:20.12.2011
Krishan Kant Shangrai and another ...Petitioners Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
(3) CRM-M-35315-2009 Date of decision:20.12.2011
Shiv Raj Sangrai ...Petitioner Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present:
Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant and respondent No.2 in CRM-M-37406-2011.
*****
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral)
This order shall dispose of three petitions bearing CRM-M-37406-2011 titled as `Shiv Raj Sangrai and others Vs. State of CRM-M-37406-2011 [2] CRM-M-34305-2011
CRM-M-35315-2011
::::::
Haryana and another' [for short "first petition"], CRM-M-34305-2011 titled as `Krishan Kant Shangrai and another Vs. State of Haryana' [for short "second petition"] and CRM-M-35315-2009 titled as `Shiv Raj Sangrai Vs. State of Haryana' [for short "third petition"]. In the first petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the FIR No.355 dated 15.10.2009, registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 506/34 of IPC at Police Station Saran, District Faridabad and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom, whereas in the second and third petitions, the petitioner(s) have prayed for pre-arrest bail in the aforesaid FIR.
During the course of hearing in CRM-M-34305-2009, the following order was passed by this Court on 01.11.2011:
"The petitioner has made a statement in Court today that he is ready to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards full and final settlement to his wife. In view thereof, she (wife) will file a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for the purpose of mutual divorce and will also co-operate in filing of the petition by him (husband) for the purpose of quashing of the present FIR in which the petitioner and his other relations are involved.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of demand draft drawn in the name of the complainant shall be brought in the Court by the petitioner on the next date of hearing and the remaining amount of Rs.3,00,000/- shall be paid by him in phases, namely Rs.2,00,000/- at the time of filing of petition under Section 13-B of the Act and the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- at the time of quashing of the FIR by this Court.
Adjourned to 08.11.2011.
CRM-M-37406-2011 [3] CRM-M-34305-2011
CRM-M-35315-2011
::::::
Interim order to continue.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case."
On 08.11.2011, the following order was passed by this Court: "In terms of order dated 01.11.2011, a cheque of `2 lac is handed over to Shikha Sharma (complainant), who is present in Court. It has already been decided that the remaining amount of `2 lac shall be paid in phases.
Now the husband (Shivraj Sangrai) and complainant (Shikha Sharma) shall file petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [for short 'the Act'] before the learned District Judge, Faridabad on 05.12.2011. At the time of filing of the divorce petition, the husband shall pay another sum of `2 lacs. At the same time, both the parties shall file a petition for quashing of the present FIR before this Court on 7.12.2011 and the remaining amount of `1 lac shall be paid at the time of quashing of the FIR. Needless to say that at the time of filing of the petition under Section 13-B of the Act, the complainant shall withdraw her petition filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for maintenance.
On the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, adjourned to 12.12.2011.
Interim order to continue.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case."
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has submitted that in terms of the aforesaid order dated 08.11.2011, the first petition has been filed in this CRM-M-37406-2011 [4] CRM-M-34305-2011
CRM-M-35315-2011
::::::
Court for quashing of the FIR and a divorce petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for mutual divorce has already been filed before the District Judge, Faridabad. He has also handed over a draft of `1 lac to Shikha Sharma (complainant), who is present in the Court. It is submitted that in terms of the aforesaid arrangement, a sum of `5 lac has already been paid to the complainant towards full and final settlement. This statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted by learned counsel for the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although the offence under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC is non-compoundable in terms of Section 320 IPC, but in order to bring harmony and peace in the society and to bury the hatchet between the parties for all times to come, this Court can always exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In this regard, he has relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2007(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1052.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record with their able assistance. In view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others' case, the first petition (CRM-M-37406-2011) is hereby allowed and the FIR No.355 dated 15.10.2009, registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 506/34 of IPC at Police Station Saran, District Faridabad (Annexure P-1 therein) and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed on account of compounding. In view of the fact that the FIR itself has been quashed, the second and third petitions have become infructuous and are dismissed as such. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases.
December 20, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE
Source
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/148140508/
