NAVEEN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition that has been filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking for quashing of FIR No. 179 dtd. 30/6/2011 (Annexure P/1) registered under Sec. 498-A/406, IPC at Police Station Kalanaur, District Rohtak, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure P/2).

(2.) In brief, the facts are that a marriage was solemnized between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 on 7/3/2010, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Rohtak. No child was born out of this wedlock. Thereafter, a matrimonial dispute arose between the parties, which led to the registration of the aforesaid FIR. Petitioner No. 1 even filed a petition under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage by decree of of divorce, which was accepted vide judgment and decree dtd. 12/9/2013. Aggrieved against the said decree of dissolution of marriage, respondent No. 2 has filed an appeal in this Court. Respondent No. 2 also filed a petition under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and a petition under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. In the meantime, during the pendency of one of the petitions filed by petitioner No. 1, being Criminal Misc. M 39571 of 2017, this Court referred the parties to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and with the help of Mediator, the all disputes between the parties have been sorted out by a compromise/settlement dtd. 1/3/2018. As per terms of the settlement, respondent No. 2 has agreed to withdraw all the cases filed by her and had also agreed to make statement for quashing of the instant FIR.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in terms of the compromise (Annexure P/2), the petitioners have paid the entire amount of Rs.35.00 lakh to respondent No. 2 towards full and final settlement in the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, vide orders dtd. 7/3/2018 and 26/3/2018 (Annexure P/3), but now respondent No. 2 is not appearing in this Court despite service.