Gautam Verma & ORS v. State Of Punjab & ANR

-1In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of Decision: 19.10.2016 Gautam Verma and others ......Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY

Present:

Mr. Parvinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Deep Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Sunil K. Nehra, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

**** ANITA CHAUDHRY, J(ORAL) The instant petition is for quashing of FIR No. 14 dated 21.1.2013 registered under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC, Police Station Mataur, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali (Annexure P-1) and all the consequent proceedings arising out of the same, on the basis of written compromise arrived at between the parties.

Report has been received from the trial Court after statements of the parties were recorded regarding the compromise. It has been reported that the complainant had appeared in the Court and made her statement in support of the compromise. However, she had stated that she had no objection if the FIR was quashed subject to payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per month by accused Gautam Verma. The Magistrate had also reported that the compromise was voluntary and without any

-2coercion and out of free will.

Learned counsel for the State on instructions submits that petitioners are the only accused and respondent No. 2 is the only aggrieved person in this FIR.

Counsel for the complainant has urged that there was an order for payment of maintenance and there was no agreement with respect to the payment of maintenance amount and they still have no objection if the FIR is quashed but petitioner No. 1 will have to pay the maintenance amount. Counsel for the petitioners contends that on account of intervention of the Court all the disputes had been sorted out and both the parties had given their affidavits and the contents therein have been reproduced in the order dated 2.9.2015 and there was no such condition and the complainant has come up with a new demand and had there been any such condition, it would have been incorporated in the affidavit sworn by Anju Verma. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the undertaking given by the petitioner in which he had agreed to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month for the minor son. The counsel further states that the complainant had married before even waiting for the minimum period and a decree of divorce had been granted which has been made final and the complainant cannot introduce new conditions.

The counsel had appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 upon notice. There was no objection on behalf of respondent No. 2. Before the trial Court respondent No. 2 has introduced another condition. No such condition was made before the Bench dealing with the divorce case. The complainant cannot turn around and ask for something new. The parties had agreed to certain conditions which have been fulfilled. Petitioner No. 1 has

-3agreed to pay the monthly maintenance amount for his son. The complainant cannot back out of the arrangement. The complainant has to stand by her statement. She has remarried now. No useful purpose would be served to keep the FIR pending. In view of the statements and report of the trial Court and the principles laid down by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303, the instant petition is allowed and the aforesaid FIR and all consequent proceedings conducted on the basis thereof are quashed qua the petitioners. Needless to say that parties shall remain bound by the terms of compromise and their statements made in the Court below. (ANITA CHAUDHRY) JUDGE October 19, 2016 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No