MUNISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sudesh Chander Gupta, respondent No. 2, filed a complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate I Class, Ambala Cantt. on 25th January, 1992 against Munish Kumar, his father Sushil Kumar and his mother Shrimati Raj Walia for offences under sections 506/406/420/ 120- B/384 and 385 of the Indian Penal Code. This complaint was sent by the Judicial Magistrate I Class to the Police Station, Ambala Cantt. for investigation and on the basis of the complaint, SubInspector Incharge of the Police Station registered a case F.I.R. No. 89 dated 9th February, 1992, Annexure P-1. The petitioners have filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the First Information Report mentioned above. It was alleged in the petition that petitioner No.1 had filed a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against Meenu Gupta daughter of respondent No. 2 and she had also filed a petition -under section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act for annulment of the marriage. The relations and friends of the parties brought about a compromise between the parties on 21st February, 1992. As per that compromise, the marriage between the parties was to stand dissolved. The parties settled all their claims present and future and they were to withdraw all the cases filed by them against each other. Both the parties were free to lead their lives without in references by the other and each of them could contract another marriage. They were not to have any legal action against each other on account of any misunderstanding. Whatever articles were exchanged between the parties were taken back. It was further alleged that after compromise was effected, the petitioners moved applications for anticipatory bail and on the basis or the statement of respondent No. 2, they were allowed prearrest bail. The petitioners and respondent No. 2 approached the police to submit a report for cancellation of the First Information Report in view of the settlement arrived at between them but their request was not adhered to by the investigation officer. Hence the petition.

(2.) Notice of the petition was given to the respondents. Respondent No. 2 appeared in person and admitted that a compromise had been arrived at and that all the disputes had been settled in terms of the compromise, Annexure P-2

(3.) The compromise, Annexure P-2, was entered into between Munish Walia, petitioner, his wife Meenu Gupta and respondent No. 2, Shri Sudesh Chander Gupta. A perusal of this document shows that as per this compromise, marriage between petitioner No.1 and Meenu Gupta stood dissolved and they also settled all their claims present and future. They agreed to withdraw all the cases and were not to take any legal action against each other in future. They were entitled to lead their lives according to their own wishes.