- (1.) Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR No. 12 dated 3.1.2006, under Section 323, 452, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) registered at Police Station DLF, Gurgaon.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact respondent No.3 had got registered three FIRs against her in-laws family. Respondent No. 3 had also moved an application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Thereafter, a compromise was effected between the parties. Respondent No.3 and Jatinder Sharma (brother of the petitioner) filed petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce on the basis of mutual consent. In the said petition, respondent No.3 had specifically stated that she would withdraw all the criminal cases initiated by her against her husband and his family members including the present FIR. Annexure P-3 is the compromise deed which was duly signed by respondent No.3. In pursuance to the compromise effected between the parties, respondent No.3 had received Rs. 2,00,000/- from her husband. However, later on respondent No.3 had backed out from the compromise. Thereafter, FIR No. 107 dated 11.2.2005, under Section 380 and 384 IPC, registered at Police Station DLF, Gurgaon and FIR No. 326 dated 8.8.2004 under Section 498-A, 323, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station DLF Gurgaon were quashed by this Court vide order dated 26.4.2011 (Annexure P-5). In support of his argument, learned counsel has placed reliance on 'Ruchi Aggarwal versus Amit Kumar Aggarwal, 2004 4 RCR(Cri) 949, wherein it was held as under:- "Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, however, contended that though the appellant had signed the compromise deed with the above-mentioned terms in it, the same was obtained by the respondent-husband and his family under threat and coercion and in fact she did not receive lump sum maintenance and her Stridhan properties, we find it extremely difficult to accept this argument in the background of the fact that pursuant to the compromise deed the respondenthusband has given her a consent divorce which she wanted thus had performed his part of the obligation under the compromise deed. Even the appellant partially performed her part of the obligations by withdrawing her criminal complaint filed under Section 125. It is true that she had made a complaint in writing to the Family Court where Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings were pending that the compromise deed was filed under coercion but she withdrew the same and gave a statement before the said court affirming the terms of the compromise which statement was recorded by the Family Court and the proceedings were dropped and a divorce was obtained. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant having received the relief she wanted without contest on the basis of the terms of the compromise, we cannot now accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, the conduct of the appellant indicates that the criminal complaint from which this appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the respondents."
(3.) Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.;