[Cites 19, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 22 April, 2026

           CRM-M-34439-2024                                                               -1-

           137+274
                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                             AT CHANDIGARH

                                                               CRM-M-34439-2024 (O&M)
                                                                Date of decision: 22.04.2026

           RAVINDER
                                                                            ...PETITIONER
                                                 VERSUS

           STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
                                                                         ...RESPONDENTS

           CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL
           Present:             Mr. Abhinav Sood, Advocate
                                for the petitioner.

                                Mr. N.P. Chandel, AAG, Haryana.

                    ***

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J.

CRM-15611-2026

Application under Section 528 BNSS/482 Cr.P.C. has been filed

for placing on record true copy of joint statement of 1st motion of petitioner

and respondent No.2/complainant dated 21.12.2023 as Annexure P5, true

copy of joint statement of 2nd motion statement dated 15.07.2024 as

Annexure P6 and decree of divorce by way of mutual consent under Section

13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, as Annexure P7. Application is allowed

and Annexures P5, P6 and P7 are taken on record, subject to all just

exceptions.

CRM-M-34439-2024 (O&M)

1. Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 0088 dated 12.07.2019

under Sections 323, 354-A, 377, 406, 498-A, 506, 34 Indian Penal Code,

Women Police Station, Ballabgarh, Tehsil and District Faridabad and all

subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated

CRM-M-34439-2024 (O&M) -2-

21.12.2023/04.07.2024. Sections 354-A, 377 and 34 IPC were deleted from

the FIR during investigation.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aforementioned

FIR was registered against the petitioner on account of a matrimonial

discord. However, the matter was amicably resolved and the parties decided

to part ways. A petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

for divorce by mutual consent was filed in the Family Court at Faridabad

and a decree of divorce by mutual consent had been passed. All other

disputes were also resolved between the parties. As per compromise deed on

record as Annexure P3, respondent No.2 had agreed to make statement

before the competent Court of law for quashing of the FIR. In the petition

for mutual divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, the

petitioner paid up Rs.5 lacs towards permanent alimony, maintenance

allowance for past, present and future and istridhan etc. Rs.3 lacs was paid in

cash at the time of first motion statement, Rs.2 lacs was paid on the second

motion statement besides an FDR of Rs.2 lacs in the name of the minor child

was given. Though, the petitioner complied with the terms of the

compromise, respondent No.2 failed to abide. She did not appear before the

Court to make statement. The only object of respondent No.2 was to harass

the petitioner and prosecution of the petitioner, despite full and final

settlement would be an abuse of the process of law. It was thus, prayed that

the petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed.

3. In support of his arguments, learned counsel refers to Surjit

Singh and Others Vs. U.T. Chandigarh and Another 2024(4)

RCR(Criminal) 732.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for quashing of

CRM-M-34439-2024 (O&M) -3-

the FIR on the ground that the allegations in the FIR prima facie disclosed

commission of cognizable offences and urged that the criminal proceedings

could not be terminated at initial stage on the ground that respondent No.2

failed to abide by the terms of the settlement.

5. Annexure P3 is the copy of compromise deed which has been

placed on record by the petitioner. The operative part of the compromise

deed reads as under:

"That during this period good sense has prevailed upon both

the parties and in order to keep the harmony and peace in the

society with the intervention of respectables and relatives, both

the parties without any pressure and inducement have decided

to resolve their dispute amicably in order to bring harmony and

peace between themselves on the following terms:-

I. That, both the parties have embraced each other and

have forgotted their enmity and differences and have decided to

live peacefully.

II. That both the parties shall not file any complaint or any

case against each other in any court of law or any authority in

future either themselves or through someone else.

III. That the first party will give statement before the

competent court of law for quashing of the FIR.

IV. That the first party has no objection if the present case/

FIR is quashed/ cancelled and is ready to make their statements

in favour of the second party for cancellation/ quashing of the

same either before the hon'ble high court or before any

competent court of law.

            CRM-M-34439-2024 (O&M)                                                             -4-

                               V.    That in the FIR the father-in-law and mother-in-law of

the first party was also named but while filing the challan they

were exonerated by the investigating agency and thus now the

case before the Ld. Trial Court is pending against the second

party only."

6. The veracity of the compromise deed cannot be doubted in view

of statements of the parties recorded in the petition under Section 13-B of

the Hindu Marriage Act at first motion and second motion stage. Relevant

portion of the statements dated 21.12.2023 and 15.07.2024, Annexures P5

and P6 respectively are reproduced as under:-

"...All disputes between us have been settled for a sum of

5,00,000/- towards permanent alimony, maintenance allowance

for past, present and future and Istridhan etc., out of which

petitioner No.1 has paid 3,00,000/- cash to the petitioner no.2

today (out of which petitioner no.2 makes F.D. amounting to

2,00,000/- in the name of minor child Manyata and will show

the FDR at the time of second motion). Petitioner no.1 has also

received 1,00,000/- in cash for herself. Remaining amount of

2,00,000/- shall be paid by the petitioner no.1 to petitioner no.2

at the time of second motion. That the custody of the girl child

namely Manyata would remain with petitioner no.2 and the

petitioner no.1 will have no visitation rights to meet his child.

That the petitioner no.1 has refund the gift items presented by

the parents of the petitioner no.2 which has been duly received

by the petitioner. No.2 The petitioner no.2 shall not raise any

demand for any maintenance, istridhan, gifts etc. or shall not

CRM-M-34439-2024 (O&M) -5-

claim any property or alimony from the petitioner no.1 in any

manner. It is settled between us that we shall withdraw all the

cases pending against each other on or before second motion. It

is also settled that we shall not file any type of case either civil

or criminal against each other in future. We have no other

claim whatsoever against each other. Our joint statement is

free from any pressure, coercion or influence from any corner.

We shall be bound by our statement and the contents of our

joint petition filed under Section 13-B of HMA...."

".....All disputes between us have been settled for a sum of

5,00,000/- towards permanent alimony, maintenance allowance

for past. present and future and Istridhan etc., out of which

petitioner No.1 had paid 3,00,000/- cash to the petitioner no.2

at the time of first motion. Copy of F.D.R amounting to

2,00,000/- in the name of minor child Manyata has been placed

on record. Remaining amount of 2,00,000/- has been paid by

the petitioner no.1 to petitioner no.2 in cash today i.e.

15.07.2024 at the time of second motion. That the custody of the

girl child namely Manyata would remain with petitioner no.2

and the petitioner no.l will have no visitation rights to meet his

child. That the petitioner no.1 has refund the gift items

presented by the parents of the petitioner no.2 which has been

duly received by the petitioner No.2 The petitioner no.2 shall

not raise any demand for any maintenance, istridhan, girts etc.

or shall not claim any property or alimony from the petitioner

CRM-M-34439-2024 (O&M) -6-

no.1 in any manner. No other matter is pending between us. It

is also settled that we shall not file any type of case either civil

or criminal against each other in future.

We have no other claim whatsoever against each other.

Even after the period of six months. there is no change in the

circumstances and we have decided to get our marriage

dissolved by way of decree of divorce. Our joint statement is

free from any pressure, coercion or influence from any corner.

We shall be bound by our statement and the contents of our

joint petition filed under Section 13-B of HMA. ...."

7. Despite the petitioner having honoured the terms of the

compromise/settlement and respondent No.2 having reaped monetary

benefits under the settlement, she is not coming forward to show cause why

the petition be not granted. Having received all the fruits under the

compromise arrived at between the parties in the petition under Section 13-B

of the Hindu Marriage Act, respondent No.2 has failed to perform her part of

the obligation requiring her to cooperate with the petitioner for quashing of

the FIR against him.

8. Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal and Ors. 2004 (4)

RCR (Criminal) 949, is a case on identical set of facts. In that case, a

compromise was arrived at between the husband and wife in the divorce

petition before the Family Court at Nanital and a compromise deed was also

filed in that Court. Terms of the compromise were that the wife would be

returned the entire Stree Dhan and paid maintenance in lump sum. On this

condition, it was agreed that the divorce by way of mutual consent under

Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, would be granted. As a part of

CRM-M-34439-2024 (O&M) -7-

the compromise, it was agreed that the wife would withdraw the complaint

case under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the case under Section 498-A, 323, 506 IPC

and the case under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Before the

Family Court could pass an order on the basis of the compromise, the wife

wrote a letter to the Family Court, resiling therefrom, alleging that she did

not receive the agreed amount. Later on, however, she changed her stance

and made statement before the learned Family Court that she wanted a

divorce and there was no dispute regarding the amount. She also withdrew

the letter written by her to the Court earlier. On that basis, the Family Court

passed decree of divorce by mutual consent. The wife withdrew the case

under Section 125 Cr.P.C. but took no steps to withdraw the case under

Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act. The husband approached the High Court for quashing the criminal

proceedings. The quashing petition was allowed, not on the basis of the

compromise, but on the ground that the trial Court in Nanital, Rampur

District had acted beyond its territorial jurisdiction in entertaining the

complaint of the wife. In the appeal filed by the wife, the judgment of the

High Court was affirmed and the criminal proceedings against the husband

were quashed on the basis of compromise. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed

thus:

"We are of the opinion that the appellant having

received the relief she wanted without contest on the basis of

the terms of the compromise, we cannot now accept the

argument of learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion,

the conduct of the appellant indicates that the criminal

complaint from which this appeal arises was filed by the wife

CRM-M-34439-2024 (O&M) -8-

only to harass the respondents."

9. Similarly in Mohd. Shamim Vs. Nahid Begum AIR 2005

SUPREME COURT 757, respondent No. 1-wife informed the Court in 482

Cr.P.C. proceedings that she did not wish to compromise the matter and

wanted to continue with the complaint, notwithstanding the fact that in her

presence, a statement to the contrary had been recorded by learned

Additional Sessions Judge, in the proceedings in that Court. This Court

accordingly dismissed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hon'ble

Supreme Court reversed the decision, concluding that the settlement arrived

at with the intervention of a Judicial Officer of the rank of Additional

Sessions Judge, ought not to be doubted and that the denial of execution of

the compromise deed by respondent No. 1-wife was clearly an afterthought.

It was observed that having accepted the sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- pursuant to

the compromise, the wife could have at least filed an application in the same

Court, returning the sum already accepted, if indeed she was serious in

resiling from the compromise. The appeal was allowed and the criminal

proceedings were quashed.

10. In Purshotam Gupta and Ors. Vs. State and Another, 2008(2)

RCR (Criminal) 564, the divorce petition filed by the husband against the

wife was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurugram. During

pendency of the appeal, the parties settled their dispute and the petition of

the husband under Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955, was converted into a petition under Section 13-B of Hindu

Marriage Act for grant of divorce by way of mutual consent. Statements of

the parties were recorded, wherein the wife conceded having accepted a sum

CRM-M-34439-2024 (O&M) -9-

of Rs. 4,00,000/- vide two cheques from the husband, as full and final

settlement of the claim as well for maintenance of the child. She also stated

that should would have no objection for quashing of the criminal

proceedings in the case under Sections 498-A, 406 read with Section 34 of

Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.

She further made a statement to withdraw the petition under Section 125

Cr.P.C. On the same day, this Court disposed of the appeal and granted

divorce on mutual consent of the parties. On a later date, the husband paid

the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the wife by way of cheques, which were

encashed.

11. Though the wife was expected to join the husband, in filing the

petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR, she refused to do so.

She also failed to appear in the quashing petition and chose to remain absent.

This Court following the two decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in

Ruchi Agarwal's case (supra) and Mohd. Shamim's case (supra) quashed

the pending criminal proceedings against the petition.

12. In Surjit Singh and Others Vs. U.T. Chandigarh and Another

(supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court culled out the following principles

in a case on similar facts.

1. (i) In an FIR, arising from matrimonial related dispute,

where the complainant/wife has reaped the benefits of a

compromise/settlement & nothing more is required to be done

by the accused-side/husband then such FIR (as also

proceedings emanating therefrom) deserves to be quashed.

(ii) In a case of above kind; the complainant/wife may, but

CRM-M-34439-2024 (O&M) -10-

of-course, raise plea(s) that such compromise/settlement was a

result of fraud/coercion/duress etc. However, such plea(s)

ought to be substantiated by tangible material and merely bald

assertion in that regard would not suffice. Furthermore, before

allowing the wife to raise such a plea(s), the Court may also

consider directing the complainant/wife to return the financial

benefit(s) received in pursuance of such compromise/settlement.

II In a case where the accused side/husband has undertaken

some steps, in terms of as also in furtherance, of the

compromise/settlement & such accused are willing to undertake

all further/remaining act(s), as required in terms of such

compromise/settlement; the High Court will be well within its

jurisdiction, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. of 1973, to favorably

consider such quashing petition upon the further/remaining

act(s) being so undertaken by the accused side/husband.

III. No comprehensive/exhaustive guidelines can possibly be

laid-down in this regard as every case has its own unique

factual conceptus. Needless to state that the High Court may

exercise its intrinsic powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. of

1973 as called for in the facts/circumstance of a particular

case. "

13. In view of compromise/mutual agreement Annexure P3 and

statements on first and second motion made by respondent No.2 before

learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, subsequent conduct of

respondent No.2 resiling from the terms of the settlement and the judicial

CRM-M-34439-2024 (O&M) -11-

pronouncement discussed hereinabove, the continuation of the criminal

proceedings against the petitioner would be abuse of the process of the

Court. It is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528

BNSS to quash the criminal proceedings.

14. The petition is allowed. FIR No. 0088 dated 12.07.2019 under

Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506, Indian Penal Code, Women Police Station,

Ballabgarh, Tehsil and District Faridabad and all consequential proceedings

arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioner.