Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ashish Saxena & Ors v. State of Haryana & Anr. - CRM-77437-M-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 12460 (12 December 2006)

Criminal Misc.No.77437-M of 2006 1


Date of Decision:-13.12.2006

Ashish Saxena and others



State of Haryana & Anr. ...Respondents


Present:- Mr.Sanjay Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr.Yashwinder Singh, A.A.G. Haryana.

Mr.Sumeet Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.2.


Petitioners have approached this Court by way of present petition seeking quashing of FIR No.369 dated 4.9.2004 (Annexure P2) registered under sections 498-A and 406 read with Section 34 IPC on the complaint made by Monika Bhatnagar-respondent No.2. Ashish Saxena petitioner No.1 and Monika Bhatnagar respondent No.2 got married on 26.4.2002 at Faridabad. Couple lived together at Delhi after marriage.

There is no issue out of this wedlock. Shortly after their marriage, differences appear to have cropped up between the couple. The issues could not be reconciled between them despite efforts made by the families and they started living separately with effect from 17.10.2003. It is alleged that they have never cohabited thereafter or lived together. It is agreed between the parties that this marriage has irretrievably broken down as the differences between the couple cannot be reconciled. Petitioner No.1 filed a divorce petition in the Court of District Judge, Delhi whereas respondent No.2 apparently answered by lodging a criminal complaint in the court of Criminal Misc.No.77437-M of 2006 2

JMIC Gurgaon. It is in this background that impugned FIR was registered against the petitioners. Challan in this case has been presented and charge framed. Subsequently, efforts appear to have been made between the parties to settle the matrimonial discord. In the meantime, respondent No.2 wife also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Finding that the couple could not live together, they decided to dissolve this marriage and agreed to seek divorce on the ground of mutual consent. Petition under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act was, accordingly, filed and divorce on the ground of mutual consent has since been granted on 16.9.2006. The perusal of the order, which is annexed with this petition as Annexure P6, would show that parties have settled the differences and dispute. Petitioners have agreed to pay a sum of Rs.7 lacs as full and final settlement. The terms of this compromise reached between the parties as reproduced in para 10 of the petition, may be noticed and are as under:-

a) Respondent No.2 has agreed to get the FIR No.369 quashed by co-operating in moving a petition i.e. the instant petition being moved under section 482 of Cr.PC in this Hon'ble High Court.

b) Respondent No.2 agreed to unconditionally withdraws the petition moved by her under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act now pending in the Court of Ld. Additional District Judge, Gurgaon.

c) Respondent No.2 agreed to co-operate and join in moving a petition for converting a petition filed by petitioner No.1 under section 13 (i) (ia) into a petition under section 13-B of Criminal Misc.No.77437-M of 2006 3

Hindu Marriage Act. Respondent No.2 also agreed to withdraw petition filed by him under Section 340 of Cr.PC in that Hon'ble Court unconditionally.

d) The parties shall join each other in moving a petition under Section 13-B (2) for divorce by mutual consent.

e) In consideration of the above and as a full and final settlement of all the claims of respondent No.2 including the claims to dowry, instridhan, maintenance (past, present, future), permanent alimony, gifts etc. Petitioner No.1 shall pay a sum of Rs.7 lacs (Rs.Seven Lace only) in two instalments The Ist instalment of Rs.3.50 lacs was already paid by petitioner No.1 to respondent No.2 at the time of statement on the petition under section 13-B (2) of Hindu Marriage Act. The remaining amount of Rs.3.50 lacs shall be paid to respondent No.2 in the court at the time of quashing of the said FIR i.e. FIR No.369 dated 4.9.2004.

f) The parties have made clear to each other not to resile from the aforesaid compromise and they shall abide by the said terms. In the event of non compliance of the aforementioned terms, the monetary advantage received by the respondent No.2 from the petition will have to be returned immediately.

g) The properties seized by the respondents in the said FIR and in custody of P.S. DLF City, Gurgaon, shall be claimed by Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 shall help him in release of these items.

h) Subsequent of dissolution of marriage, none of the parties Criminal Misc.No.77437-M of 2006 4

shall interfere in the personal life of each other. They further undertake not to file any complaint or initiate any further action on account of the said marriage.

The parties are present in person in Court today. A sum of Rs.3.5 lacs had already been paid to respondent No.2 which she has acknowledged in court. A draft bearing No.017253 dated 7.10.2006 amounting to Rs.3.5 lacs is handed over to counsel for respondent No.2, which is received by her being present in Court. Both the parties have conceded that all the terms and conditions of the compromise have been complied with and they would have no objection if FIR (Annexure P2) registered at the instance of respondent No.2 is ordered to be quashed.

Since the parties have mutually agreed to end their disputes and differences and have dissolved this marriage, no useful purpose would be served to allow these proceedings to continue. Offences arising out of matrimonial dispute can be ordered to be quashed on the basis of compromise as per Full Bench decision of this Court rendered in Dharambir Vs. The State of Haryana, 2005 (3) RCR (Criminal) 426 and in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S.Joshi Vs. State of Haryana (2003) 4 S.C.C. 675.

Accordingly, FIR No.369 dated 4.9.2004 registered under sections 406 and 498-A read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station DLF City Gurgaon and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

The present petition is, accordingly, allowed.

(Ranjit Singh)





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


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 |

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