AJAY KUMAR SINGLA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C. for quashing the F.I.R. No. 180, dated 15.10.1998 registered at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt, under Sec. 406, 498-A, I.P.C. on the application of Lata Rani, the second-respondent herein.

(2.) The case of the petitioners (who are the husband, brother-in-law, mother-in-law, father, father-in-law, the married sister-in-law of the complainant-Lata Rani as also the husband of the above said married sister in law) is that the first-petitioner who is the husband and the second respondent-complainant have several civil and criminal litigations, and ultimately, since no reconciliation could be brought out between them, they had decided to seek mutual divorce and have entered into a compromise accordingly. The copy of the compromise has been produced as annexure P-1. The further case of the petitioner is that in accordance with the compromise, the first petitioner has paid cash in full and final settlement and all the maintenance, marriage expenses, Istridhan etc. while the other claims were agreed to be abondoned by the second-respondent. According to the petitioners, it was also agreed to withdraw all the civil and criminal proceedings. The petitioners also claim that the compromise was acted upon and petition for divorce by mutual consent was also filed before the District Judge, Ambala, who has also given divorce vide order dated 11.5.1999, copy of which is annexure P-2. According to the petitioners, the complainant (second-respondent) had also given application to the S.H.O. Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt (copy thereof Annexure P-3) mentioning about compromise and also stating that she does not want to persue her complaint.

(3.) The claim of the petitioners is that since all the disputes between the parties has been settled, the second-respondent and complainant is not inclined to press criminal complainant and is also not willing to support the F.I.R. in question and the criminal proceedings, if permitted to go on, would not be in the interest of the parties or in the interest of the public. The petitioners have, therefore prayed for the quashing of the F.I.R. in question.