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


Basant Dass Shorey & Ors v. State of Haryana & Ors - CRM-37227-M-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 9789 (3 November 2006)

Crl.Misc.No.37227-M of 2004 1


Crl.Misc.No.37227-M of 2004


Basant Dass Shorey and others Vs. State of Haryana and others ....

Present : Mr. I.P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Deepak Girotra, AAG, Haryana for respondent no.1.

Dr. Surya Parkash, Advocate for respondent no.2.

Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.3.



This order shall dispose of Crl.Misc.Nos.37227-M of 2004 and 44729-M of 2006. Prayer in these petitions is for quashing of the FIR Nos.65 dated 12.3.2004, registered under Sections 406,498-A,420,506 IPC at Police Station Baldev Nagar, Ambala City, and 127 dated 6.4.2004, registered under Sections 436,147,149 IPC at Police Station Kotwali, Patiala, on the ground that the husband and wife have resolved their matrimonial differences, which were the basis for the lodging of these FIRs.

Respondents no.2 and 3, were married on 4.9.2002. A matrimonial dispute between them, led respondent no.2 to lodge FIR No.65 dated 12.3.2004, registered under Sections 406,498-A,420,506 IPC at Police Station Baldev Nagar, Ambala City, against her husband-respondent no.3 and the petitioners. In the meanwhile, Sanjay Kaushal, brother of petitioner no.4, in Crl.Misc.No.44729-M of2006 and allegedly at the behest of the Crl.Misc.No.37227-M of 2004 2

petitioners, got registered FIR No.127 dated 6.4.2004, under Sections 436,147,149 IPC at Police Station Kotwali, Patiala, against respondent no.2, her parents and her brother. During the pendency of the trial in the aforementioned FIRs, parties, which include the husband and wife, as also the complainant, in the latter FIR, resolved their differences and arrived at a settlement. As per the settlement, all litigation between the parties, was to be brought to an end.

In furtherance to the aforementioned settlement, Ms.Reetu Shorey, the wife, appeared before this Court on 2.9.2004 and made the following statement :-

"My marriage was solemnised with Shri Naresh Shorey son of Shri Basant Dass Shorey, on 4.9.2002. After my marriage, I was being harassed by my husband and his family members, due to which, I was compelled to lodge FIR No.65 dated 12.3.2004 against my husband and his family members, under Sections 406,498-A,420 and 506 IPC at Police Station,Baldev Nagar, Ambala City. Now, my husband is living in Bahrain. When my parents-in- law approached this Court for anticipatory bail, then with the intervention of the respectables, it was decided to compromise the matter. Thereupon, vide order dated May 3, 2004 passed by this Court, the matter was sent to the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ambala for amicable settlement between the parties. In the Lok Adalat, the parties have compromised the matter in the following terms :-

Crl.Misc.No.37227-M of 2004 3

(1)Gold ornaments in possession of the police shall be handed over to Ritu complainant and the same would be her property;

(2)Two almirahas which are lying locked and were taken into possession by the police from the premises of Basant Shori and which too are now in possession of the police and are locked shall also be handed over to the complainant Ritu and its contents shall also be her absolute property;

(3)Other household articles which too were recovered by the police from the premises of Basant Shori and are in possession of the police shall also be handed over to complainant Ritu and would be her absolute property; (4)That two Bank drafts of Rs.five lakhs and Rs. Four Lakh seventy five thousand i.e. Total Rs.Nine Lakh seventy five thousand shall be handed over by Basant Shori in the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 16.8.2004 for appropriate action for payment of Ritu towards full and final settlement of her claims of past, present and future maintenance including Istridhan etc.;

(5)Appropriate proceedings shall be taken in order to finish all cases in the nature of FIR No.65 of 2004 under Sec.406/498-A IPC registered with Police of P.S. Baldev Nagar, Ambala City at the instant of complainant-Ritu;

Crl.Misc.No.37227-M of 2004 4

(6)The Passport of Ritu with the opposite party will also be returned to the complainant Ritu by the opposite party;

(7)Appropriate steps shall also be taken for dissolving the marriage by a decree of divorce between Ritu and her husband Naresh. All cases instituted by either party anywhere in any court either civil or criminal shall stand abated after the terms of the compromise are carried into effect;

(8)It is understood that there would be no future litigation arising out of the marriage in question between the parties.

I have received the gold ornaments which were in possession of the police as mentioned in Clause (i); two almirahs, as mentioned in Clause (ii) and other household articles, as mentioned in Clause (iii). I have also received two bank drafts amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.4,75,000/-, respectively, copies of which have been annexed as Annexures P-3 and P-4.

I have also received my passport in the Court today, as mentioned in Clause (vi). After receiving all these articles and the drafts, I have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

However, as per Clause (vii) both the parties have to take steps for dissolving the marriage by a decree of divorce. If my husband comes to India, we will file a joint petition for mutual divorce. It will be open for both the parties to file individual Crl.Misc.No.37227-M of 2004 5

petition for divorce also."

In the meanwhile, a petition for grant of divorce by mutual consent was filed before the District and Sessions Judge, Panchkula. The said petition was allowed and marriage between Ms.Reetu Shorey and Naresh Shorey was dissolved by grant of a decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 7.4.2006. On 29.5.2006, this Court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, to record the statement of the parties, in terms of the alleged compromise. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate submitted a report, vide his letter dated 19.7.2006, that Ms. Reetu Shorey declined to abide by the terms and conditions of the compromise, as she deposed that Sanjay Kaushal had not withdrawn the FIR, lodged by him.

It appears that better sense has prevailed and all parties have agreed to abide by the compromise/settlement. Separate affidavits have been filed by Basant Dass Shorey, petitioner no.1 and attorney of Naresh Shorey, the husband, Ms. Reetu Shorey, respondent no.2, as also by Sanjay Kaushal, the complainant in Crl.Misc.No.44729-M of 2006. These affidavits are taken on record and assigned marks `A-1 to A-4'.

Ms.Reetu Shorey, who is present in person, acknowledges the settlement and states that as Sanjay Kaushal has agreed not to raise any objection, to the quashing of FIR No.127 dated 6.4.2004, she has no objection, if FIR No.65 dated 12.3.2004 is quashed. She has acknowledged receipt of a sum of Rs.9.75 lacs.

Mr.Sanjay Kaushal, who is present in Court, in his duly sworn and attested affidavit `A-4', states that he has no objection, if FIR No.127 dated 6.4.2004 lodged by him is quashed.

In view of the aforementioned facts, counsel for the parties pray Crl.Misc.No.37227-M of 2004 6

that as in both FIRs, parties have resolved their differences, by way of a settlement and have agreed to comply with the terms and conditions thereof, the FIRs be quashed.

Counsel for the States of Punjab and Haryana state that in view of settlement between the parties, they would not stand in the way of the settlement and do not oppose quashing of the FIR.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Admittedly, parties to the present petition have settled their differences. The complainant,respondent no.2 has received a sum of Rs.9.75 lacs, in lieu of all her claims, whether of Istri Dhan, maintenance or alimony. A decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 29.5.2006 has brought the marriage to an end. Though at one stage, the complainant wife Ms. Reetu, declined to abide by the settlement, she has filed a fresh affidavit dated 1.11.2006, accepting the settlement.

The offences complained, are no doubt non-compoundable.

However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with a similar controversy, in B.S. Joshi and others V. State of Haryana and another, 2003(2) RCR (Criminal) 888, held that in cases arising from matrimonial disputes,where parties have settled their dispute, a High Court would be well within its jurisdiction, to quash proceedings emanating from matrimonial disputes. As parties have resolved their matrimonial differences, to permit prosecution to carry on would, in my opinion, be an exercise in futility and a wastage of public time and money. In view of the settlement, the complainant and the witnesses are not likely to support the prosecution case. There appears to be no reason to doubt the bonafides of Crl.Misc.No.37227-M of 2004 7

the settlement. These FIRs were the direct result of a matrimonial dispute.

Parties desire to bring this unfortunate chapter in their lives to an end. It is a fit case, where this Court in the exercise of jurisdiction,under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., should 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.65 dated 12.3.2004, registered under Sections 406,498-A,420,506 IPC at Police Station Baldev Nagar, Ambala City and FIR No.127 dated 6.4.2004, registered under Sections 436,147,149 IPC at Police Station Kotwali, Patiala as also consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed, qua the petitioners and respondent no.3 in Crl.Misc.No.37227-M of 2006 and qua the petitioners in Crl.Misc.No.44729-M of 2006.

1.11.2006 ( RAJIVE BHALLA )



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.