KAMLESH VERMA Vs. NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure petitioners are seeking quashing of the FIR No. 243/92 under Sections 498A/406 Indian Penal Code P.S. Anand Vihar pending in the court of Sh. J.P.S. Malik, MM, Delhi.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that petitioner No.3 Naresh Kumar was married to respondent No.2 Smt. Archana marriage between the parties could not succeed and on account of personal & private differences between them, above noted FIR was registered on the report lodged by respondent No.2. On 20/01/1993 and 13/02/1993 articles of Istridhan of the complainant were seized by the police and delivered to her. Other petitioners are the relatives of petitioner No.3. They were challaned by the police. Petitioner No. 3 has filed a petition for divorce at Karnal and the same was decreed in his favour on 5th August, 1995. Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed an Appeal in the High Court. The matter was heard by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh; there compromise between the parties was reached and in terms of compromise petitioner paid a sum of Rs.2,25,000/~ to the respondent No.2. She undertook not to claim any maintenance, past and future, and undertook to withdraw all litigations arising out of matrimonial dispute. She also undertook to withdraw the criminal case pending in the Criminal Court Shahdara. The appeal was disposed of by the High Court on 25/03/1996. In view of the said order, he argued that continuation of proceedings against petitioners is an abuse of the process of law, therefore, same be quashed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 did not contest the lodging of the FIR and seizure of Istridhan articles on 20/01/1993 and 13/02/1993 and the High Court order. However, he; argued that on 11/02/1993, during investigation of the above noted case, respondent No.2 had handed over the list of balance Istridhan articles including Jewellery to the petitioners which were to be given back to her and that those articles are yet to be recovered. While admitting that sum of Rs.2,25,000.00 was paid to petitioner, he argued that this amount was paid only towards maintenance and, therefore, the said FIR be not quashed. Learned APP for the state does not oppose the petition for quashing.

(3.) It is, not in dispute that respondent No.2/complainant was working in the railway at the relevant time. In view of the same, I am unable to accept the argument that the complainant accepted Rs.2,25,000/- only towards her maintenance. Articles of Instridhan were recovered by the police during investigation on 20/01/1993 and 13/02/1993. The respondent is resting her claim for the un-recovered jewellery on the list given on 11/02/1993 during the investigations to the police. This claim was very much within her knowledge on the date she accepted Rs.2,25,000.00 before Division Bench in High-Court on 25/03/1996 when she specifically undertook to withdraw/settle criminal case pending in the Matrimonial Court, Shahdra. If that was so, respondent No.2 ought to have not agreed or ought to have sought clarification from the High Court. That having not been done, now it does not lie in her mouth and argued that she never agreed to get the criminal proceeding quashed. This contention is without merit and the same is rejected.