Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

UMESH YADAV & ORS versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Umesh Yadav & Ors v. State of Haryana & another - CRM-30592-m-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 4660 (24 July 2006)

Crl.Misc.No.30592.M of 2006 ::1::

1. Crl.Misc.No.30592.M of 2006 Umesh Yadav & others vs State of Haryana & another

2. Crl.Misc.No.30723.M of 2006 Dalip Singh & others vs State of Haryana & another Present : Mr.K.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate,

for the petitioners in Crl.Misc.No.30592.M of 2006.

Mr.J.S.Jadav, Advocate,

for the petitioners in Crl.Misc.No.30723.M of 2006.

Mr.Deepak Girotra, AAG, Haryana.

*****

This order shall dispose of Crl.Misc.Nos.30592.M and 30723.M of 2006.

Prayer in Crl.Misc.No.30592.M of 2006, is for quashing of FIR No.37, dated 13.2.2006, registered under Sections 498-A/323/506/406/34 of the IPC, at Police Station Sector 5, Rajendra Park, Gurgaon, whereas prayer in Crl.Misc.No.30723.M of 2006 is for quashing of FIR No.36, dated 13.2.2006, registered under Sections 147, 148, 323, 452, 506, 356 of the IPC, at Police Station Sector 5, Gurgaon, on the plea that the matrimonial dispute between Umesh Yadav and Kamlesh Yadav that led to the registration of these FIRs, has been resolved.

Umesh and Kamlesh were married on 2.12.1999. A matrimonial dispute arose between them. Dalip Singh and others, petitioners in Crl.Misc.No.30723.M of 2006, are the wife's father and brothers, whereas the petitioners in Crl.Misc.No.30592.M of 2006 are the husband and his relatives. Raj Singh, father of the husband-Umesh Yadav, is alleged to have invited Dalip Singh and other relatives of the wife to resolve the matrimonial differences between Umesh and Kamlesh. A heated Crl.Misc.No.30592.M of 2006 ::2::

exchange, between them, led to an altercation and to the lodging of the aforementioned FIRs, by both parties, levelling different allegations. Apart from the allegations, levelled by both parties with respect to injuries and threats, the FIR, lodged by the wife, alleged harassment, cruelty, demands of dowry etc. Both parties filed petitions for anticipatory bail, namely, Crl.Misc.Nos.16312.M of 2006, 18205.M of 2006, 18272.M of 2006, and 18845.M of 2006. During the pendency of these petitions, parties arrived at a settlement, dated 18.5.2006. The salient features of the aforementioned settlement are reproduced herein below :- " 1. That Umesh of the first party and the second party will jointly file a petition for divorce by mutual consent under section 13-b of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the Court of Competent Jurisdiction so as to get the marriage dissolved by decree of divorce by mutual consent. For this purpose, immediately upon institution of the said petition, both the parties would make their respective statements undertaking therein to abide by the terms and conditions of the present compromise and also for getting the marriage dissolved.

2. That so as to settle all the claims of the second party towards maintenance and permanent alimony of the second party, the first party shall pay to the second party a consolidated sum of Rs.5 lakhs. With the payment of the said amount of Rs.5 lakhs, all the claims of the second party against the first party or any of their relatives shall stand satisfied and the second party shall Crl.Misc.No.30592.M of 2006 ::3::

not have any claim subsisting against the first party of their relative arising out of the matrimony between Umesh and the second party.

3. That the said amount of 5 lakhs would be deposited by the first party before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court during the course of hearing of Crl.Misc.No. _______ and the same shall be disbursed to the second party only upon the grant of the final decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between Umesh and the second party.

4. That both the parties and their relatives shall file petitions for quashing of FIRs mentioned in clause (i) and (ii) above and the respective complainants of the said FIRs i.e. Raj Singh out of first party and the second party would have no objection on the said FIRs and all proceedings originating there from being quashed.

5. That both the parties shall withdraw from the prosecution of the litigations mentioned in clauses (i) to (iii) above and shall not pursue them against either of the parties or their relatives. None of the parties shall pursue or institute any other litigation against either of the parties or their relatives arising out of the matrimonial dis-cord between the parties and any place.

6. That the second party shall not have any claim over the property, Estate etc. of the first party or any of their relatives and similarly the first party shall not have Crl.Misc.No.30592.M of 2006 ::4::

any claim over the property, Estate etc. of the second party or any of their relatives. Accordingly, the second party shall hand over the vacant peaceful possession of House No.48, Ashok Vihar, Phase-III, Gurgaon to the first party by.........

7. That this compromise has been entered into between the parties out of their own free will, consent and without any sort of coercion, undue influence or pressure from any quarters and both the parties are in their sound disposing mind. "

Pursuant to the aforementioned settlement, this Court, on 30.5.2006, passed the following order in Crl.Misc.No.30592.M of 2006 :- Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.37 dated 13.2.2006 registered under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 406, 34 IPC at Police Station Sector- 5 Rajendra Park, Gurgaon.

Parties have resolved their differences, by arriving at a settlement dated 18.5.2006, titled as a 'Compromise'. As per the compromise, petitioner No.1-Umesh Yadav the husband and respondent No.2-Kamlesh Yadav the wife have resolved their matrimonial differences. Smt. Kamlesh Yadav is present in Court and acknowledges the factum of the settlement. She has received in Court today, a Bankers Cheque of Rs.5 lacs, from Sh. Umesh Yadav, who is also present in Court and accepts the compromise.

Crl.Misc.No.30592.M of 2006 ::5::

It has also been agreed that parties have no objection if the present FIR and all other FIRs registered inter parties are quashed. It is also agreed that respondent No.2-Kamlesh Yadav shall not withdraw an amount beyond Rs.2 lacs, credited to her account from the bankers cheque, referred to hereinabove. Smt. Kamlesh Yadav shall be entitled to withdraw Rs.2 lacs immediately. It is also agreed that she would be entitled to withdraw the balance amount of Rs.3 lacs after the grant of the decree of divorce. Smt. Kamlesh Yadav has also agreed to vacate the house in her occupation, within a fortnight of the deposit of the bankers cheque in a Bank of her choice.

Adjourned to 24.7.2006 to enable the parties to comply with the settlement."

The parties are present in Court, alongwith their respective counsel.

Counsel for the petitioners in Crl.Misc.No.30723.M of 2006 submits that in accordance with the terms of the settlement, the key to the house has been handed over to the opposite party. All conditions, set out in the settlement, have been complied with and parties would file a petition for grant of divorce by mutual consent, before the District Judge, Gurgaon on 31.7.2006 at 10 am.

Counsel for the petitioners in Crl.Misc.No.30592.M of 2006 does not deny the correctness of the aforementioned facts. The petitioners in both petitions accept the correctness of the compromise, as also the fact Crl.Misc.No.30592.M of 2006 ::6::

that the conditions, referred to in the settlement, have been complied with and, thus, they pray that both the FIRs be quashed.

On the basis of the aforementioned facts, counsel for the petitioners, contend that as the parties have resolved their matrimonial differences, by way of a bona fide settlement, it would be in the interest of justice and in the interest of parties that the FIRs, as also all proceedings, arising therefrom, be quashed.

Counsel for the State of Haryana submits that as the parties have resolved their differences, the State would not stand in their way and, therefore, has no objection, if the FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, as also the settlement.

A matrimonial dispute, between Umesh Yadav and Kamlesh Yadav, led to the lodging of two FIRs, one by Umesh Yadav's father and the other by Kamlesh Yadav. The parties, as is apparent from the facts, narrated herein above, have resolved their differences and pray that both the FIRs be quashed. The terms and conditions of the settlement, reproduced herein above, have been complied with. Part of the monetary compensation, towards all claims, has been paid to Kamlesh Yadav. The balance amount would be paid, in terms of the settlement. The key to the house has been handed over, in Court today, to counsel for the petitioners in Crl.Misc.No.30592.M of 2006. The parties have also agreed to file a petition for grant of divorce by mutual consent, before the District Judge, Gurgaon on 31.7.2006 at 10 am.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, where the Crl.Misc.No.30592.M of 2006 ::7::

parties have resolved their differences, by way of a bona fide settlement, to permit the prosecution of the FIRs to continue, in my opinion, would be an exercise in futility and a wastage of public time and money. The genesis of the FIRs was the matrimonial discord between Umesh Yadav and Kamlesh Yadav. As noticed herein above, they have resolved their differences, and agreed to part ways, as also obtain a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

Both parties are satisfied as to the terms and conditions of the settlement and have decided to bring their matrimonial alliance, as also the present dispute to an end and pursue their separate lives afresh. In view of the settlement, the complainant and her/his witnesses are not likely to support the prosecution case. It is a fit case where this Court ought, in the exercise of jurisdiction, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, to put an end to these futile criminal proceedings.

Consequently, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the present petitions are allowed and FIR No.37, dated 13.2.2006, registered under Sections 498-A/323/506/406/34 of the IPC, at Police Station Sector 5, Rajendra Park, Gurgaon, and FIR No.36, dated 13.2.2006, registered under Sections 147, 148, 323, 452, 506, 356 of the IPC, at Police Station Sector 5, Gurgaon, as also all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

( RAJIVE BHALLA )

July 24, 2006. JUDGE

`kk'

Crl.Misc.No.30592.M of 2006 ::8::


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.