VISHAL NANDA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing FIR No. 297/2010 dated 18.12.2010 and also for quashing proceedings in case No. 186/2/11, titled State Vs. Jawahar Lal Nanda and others pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Court No.1), Kasauli, District Solan.

(2.) "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that marriage between petitioner and respondent No.2 was solemnized according to Hindu rites and custom on 29.11.2002. Respondent No.2 initially resided with petitioner in the house of his father at Panchkula (Haryana). A son was born out of the wedlock. Relations between petitioner and respondent No.2 became strained after few years. Father of the petitioner Sh. Jawahar Lal Nanda told petitioner to make separate arrangement for himself and his wife, i.e. respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 filed an FIR No.297/2010 dated 18.12.2010 under section 498 -A, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and his family members. A compromise was arrived at between the parties on 9.1.2011 vide Annexure P -2. According to the terms enumerated in the compromise, jewelry of respondent No.2, which was lying in the locker of the father of petitioner, was to be returned to her, sum of Rs. 40 lakhs was to be paid to respondent No.2 and her minor son. The custody of the minor son was to be retained by respondent No.2. Mutual divorce was to be obtained by the petitioner and respondent No.2. A sum of Rs. 20 lakhs was paid to respondent No.2 by way of banker's cheque No. 819545 dated 19.2.2011 drawn on State of Bank of India and a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs each was paid in favour of minor son of respondent No.2, Master Arjun Nanda under the guardianship of respondent No.2 vide demand draft No. 793228 dated 19.2.2011 and cheque No. 819547 dated 21.2.2011. The cheques were duly honoured as per Annexure P -4. In terms of compromise, petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, which was registered as H.M. Petition No. 2 -S 3 of 2011, was filed by respondent No.2. Decree of dissolution of marriage was passed by the District Judge, Solan on 29.10.2011. Respondent No.2 had also moved an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Solan for compounding offence under section 498 -A of the Indian Penal Code. According to the terms of compromise and dissolution of marriage vide Annexure P -5, it would be futile in case proceedings in case No.186/2/11 are continued. It is in these circumstances, present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 297/2010 dated 18.12.2010 and subsequent proceedings consequent to said FIR pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.1, Kasauli, District Solan in case No. 186/2/11.

(3.) TYPED version of agreement dated 9.1.2011 has been placed on record by the petitioner vide Annexure P - 2/T. This agreement has been arrived at between Jawahar Lal Nanda, father of petitioner and Kamal Anand, father of respondent No.2. It was agreed that the jewelry lying in the locker of first party would be returned to the father of respondent No.2. A sum of Rs. 40 lakhs by way of two FDRs, one in the name of Nidhi Nanda and one in the name of Nikhil Nanda (minor) were to be paid by the 1st party as per terms to be settled by the counsel for the parties, namely, Sh. S.K. Pandit and R.K. Garg, Advocates, Solan. Custody of minor was to be retained by the mother respondent No.2. Divorce petition was to be filed as per compromise and divorce would be obtained from the competent court of law in accordance with law. It has been specifically stated in the agreement that all disputes would be settled and would be brought to an end as per mutual decision arrived at between the parties. This agreement was signed by Jawahar Lal Nanda, father of petitioner and Kamal Anand, father of respondent No.2. It was witnessed by Rajinder Singh and Mohinder Singh. It cannot be said that the compromise was not between petitioner and respondent No.2. The compromise was signed by father of respondent No.2 on her behalf. The A sum of ' jewelry as per agreement was to be returned. 40 lakhs has been paid to respondent No.2 and to her son. The cheques have been encahsed. The marriage has been dissolved between petitioner and respondent No.2 on the basis of judgment dated 29.10.2011 passed by the District