Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SANJEEV KHANNA & ORS versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SANJEEV KHANNA & Ors v. STATE OF HARYANA & Ors - CRM-16654-M-2005 [2005] RD-P&H 15 (17 May 2005)

Crl.Misc.No.16654-M of 2005

....

Present : Mr.Gorav Kathuria, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Jitendra Chauhan, Sr. DAG Haryana.

Respondent in person.

.....

By way of this present petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners pray that FIR No.699 dated 5.8.1998, under Sections 294/506 IPC, registered at Police Station N.I.T. Faridabad, be quashed.

Petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 were married on 6.5.1987.

Petitioner no.1 is the husband, whereas respondent no.2 is the wife. Two children were born from this marriage. A matrimonial dispute, arose between the petitioner and respondent no.2, which led to their residing separately since November, 1997.

The wife, Respondent no.2, filed a criminal complaint, against the petitioners under Sections 494/109/120-B/34 IPC, before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Faridabad, titled Veena Khanna V. Sanjiv Khanna and others. She also lodged FIR No.699 at Police Station N.I.T. Faridabad, against petitioners no.1 to 3, under Sections 294/506 IPC, pursuant whereto the trial is in progress before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Faridabad. A petition for maintenance, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., was also filed.

During the pendency of the above mentioned proceedings and with the intervention of friends and relatives, petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2, decided to dissolve their marriage. Consequently, they executed a deed of settlement dated 16.7.2004, duly signed by them. Pursuant to the aforementioned deed, petitioner no.1, agreed to pay a sum of Rs.15.00 lacs to respondent no.2, as a one time settlement towards all monetary claims past, present and future, and also with regard to the maintenance of respondent no.2 and their two minor children. It was also agreed that the amount would be paid to respondent no.2, after the dissolution of marriage by the grant of a decree of divorce by mutual consent, and withdrawal/compounding of the criminal cases.

The learned District Judge, Faridabad, vide judgement and decree dated 27.1.2005, dissolved the marriage by grant of a decree of divorce, by mutual consent.

The parties appeared in person and their separate statements were recorded. Respondent no.2 Smt. Veena, has acknowledged the facts narrated above, has deposed that the deed of settlement has been executed by her without any duress or coercion. She has further stated that she has withdrawn the criminal complaint, the proceedings filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and has already received a sum of Rs.15.00 lacs. She has also deposed that a decree of divorce by mutual consent has been passed dissolving their marriage.

She has prayed that the FIR be quashed, so as to enable the parties to lead their separate lives. Statement of petitioner no.1 Sh.Sanjiv Khanna is identical.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the FIR was lodged pursuant to a matrimonial dispute. Petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 have resolved their matrimonial differences by executing a deed of settlement dated 16.7.2004. Pursuant thereto, respondent no.2 has received a sum of Rs.15.00 lacs, a decree of divorce by mutual consent has been granted, the petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and criminal complaint have been withdrawn. It is thus prayed that the FIR and all subsequent proceedings, emanating therefrom be quashed so as to enable the parties, to lead their separate lives, afresh.

It is further contended that as the matrimonial bond stands snapped, no useful purpose would be served, by permitting the prosecution to continue as it would be a hindrance, in the parties leading their lives afresh.

Counsel for the State of Haryana submits that as the husband and wife have resolved their differences, the State will not stand in their way and, therefore, does not oppose the prayer for quashing of the FIR.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the paper book as also the statements made by the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 respectively.

A careful consideration of the deed of settlement, the statements made by the parties, reveals that the settlement is bona fide. The present FIR arose from a matrimonial dispute. Pursuant to the settlement, parties have resolved all outstanding disputes. A decree of divorce has been granted, severing the matrimonial tie. The criminal complaint and the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C, by respondent no.2 have been withdrawn. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering a similar controversy in B.S.Joshi and others V. State of Haryana and another, 2003(2) RCR (Criminal) 888, held that where the parties have by a bona fide settlement resolved their matrimonial differences, the High Court in the exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should quash the FIR, so as to prevent wastage of public time and money and permit the parties to lead their separate lives afresh.

In view of what has been stated above, I am of the considered opinion, that in view of the settlement between the parties, which settlement, in my considered view, is bona fide, no purpose would be served by permitting the prosecution of the present FIR to continue. The prosecution witnesses, are not likely to depose in consonance with their statements made before the police.

Petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 have parted ways, and propose to lead separate lives. In this view of the matter, the trial, would in my opinion, be contrary to the interest of the parties, a wastage of public time and money and, therefore, should be quashed.

In view of what has been stated above, the present FIR No.699 dated 5.8.1998, under Sections 294/506 IPC, registered at Police Station N.I.T.Faridabad, and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom, are quashed.

9.8.2005 (RAJIVE BHALLA )

GS JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.