GIRRAJ @ JITENDER Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, I shall dispose of filed by petitioner Girraj @ Jitender for quashing of application/complaint bearing case No.341/1 dtd. 22/11/2010 seeking initiation of proceedings under Sec. 182 IPC moved by respondent against the petitioner along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including order dtd. 22/11/2010 passed by SDJM, Hathin, issuing notice upon such application on the basis of compromise as evident from order dtd. 16/12/2011 passed by this Court in CRM-M-33075 of 2011 and CRM-7045-2014 filed by applicant/respondent No.2 for recalling the order dtd. 16/12/2011 passed in CRM-M-33075-2011.

(2.) Inter alia in it is contended that marriage between petitioner Girraj @ Jitender and respondent No.2 Satyawati was solemnized on 20/6/1995 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies; that after the marriage, the couple cohabited together but were not blessed with any child; unfortunately the spouses could not lead happy marital life, resultantly Satyawati lodged FIR No.49 dtd. 30/1/2002 for the offences under Ss. 498-A, 406, 494, 506 IPC with Police Station Sector-7, Faridabad against the petitioner and his family members; in addition to that she had brought a petition under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance against the present petitioner; the petitioner had also filed a criminal complaint under Ss. 323, 324, 452, 506, 34 IPC against his wife Satyawati, Satyawati's brother Om Parkash and mother Maya; in the said criminal complaint, the respondents were acquitted by SDJM, Hathin vide judgment dtd. 25/10/2010; the petitioner had filed an appeal against that judgment, whereas Om Parkash, brother of Satyawati had filed a criminal complaint for defamation against the present petitioner; that in the meanwhile respondents had filed a complaint seeking initiation of proceedings under Sec. 182 IPC against the petitioner for the reason that in para No.16 of the judgment passed by SDJM, Hathin, while dismissing the criminal complaint filed by the present petitioner and acquitting the respondents in that case had observed that the complaint was nothing but a bundle of lies, filed as a pressure tactics due to State cases; that vide order dtd. 22/11/2010, notice of the application was ordered to be issued.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the trial Court has straightway issued the notice of application without due application of mind for the reason that cognizance of offence under Sec. 182 IPC could only be taken by way of filing a complaint in writing by a public servant in terms of Sec. 195 Cr.P.C. and not by private individuals, however, the trial Magistrate vide order dtd. 14/7/2011 had served notice of accusation upon the petitioner but the parties had arrived at a compromise in Daily Lok Adalat held at Palwal Courts wherein their statements were recorded and as per the terms of the agreement, the petitioner would pay a sum of Rs.7,50,000.00 to respondent No.2 as settlement of permanent alimony and both the spouses agreed to get their marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent settling all the disputes; that both the parties agreed to withdraw all the cases filed by them against each other; that an amount of Rs.7,50,000.00 was agreed to be given to respondent No.2 at the time of quashing of the FIR; that petitioner along with his family members, who are accused in FIR approached this Court by way of filing CRM-M-33075-2011 for quashing of FIR and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise; in the said petition, the respondent No.2 Satyawati put in appearance and filed an affidavit dtd. 16/12/2011 with regard to factum of compromise, wherein it was clearly stated that both the parties would withdraw all civil and criminal cases filed by them against each other; that thereafter vide order dtd. 16/12/2011 FIR (Anenxure P-1) was quashed on the basis of compromise; that a draft of Rs.7.5 lakhs was handed over to respondent No.2 in the Court. However, offence under Sec. 182 IPC being not compoundable and notice of accusation having been issued, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition. It is further pleaded that an appeal was filed by the petitioner against the judgment dtd. 25/10/2010 passed by the trial Court acquitting the respondents, in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal but as a result of settlement between the parties, he has since withdrawn that appeal.