Rajesh Bindal J. - (1.) THE prayer made in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") is for quashing FIR No. 238 dated June 21, 2006 registered under Sections 406, 498 -A, 323 IPC at Police Station, Sector 5, Panchkula and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties has been settled amicably by way of compromise which was reduced in writing. Copy thereof is placed on record as Annexure P -2. Even the divorce has been granted in a petition filed under Section 13 -B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the petitioner vide judgment dated October 5, 2007 passed by learned District Judge, Panchkula. He further submits that before the learned District Judge, Panchkula at the time of grant of divorce by mutual consent, respondent No. 2 on October 5, 2007 had reiterated her statement already made on March 8, 2007 in the Court to the effect that all the issues between the parties had been settled and that respondent No. 2 will cooperate with the petitioner in getting the criminal proceedings initiated against him quashed. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mohd. Shamim and Ors. v. Nahid Begum (Smt.) and Anr., (2005) SCC 302 a five Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) LH (P&H) 2225 and Maninder Kaur v. Gurinder Singh Dhillon . Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 sought to dispute the compromise with the plea that respondent No. 2 was not in fit state of mind when the statement was made before the Court and accordingly proceedings should not be quashed.
(3.) PERUSAL of the record shows that there was a compromise entered into between the parties on January 24, 2007, which is duly signed by the parties where even the brother of respondent No. 2 had signed as a witness. Perusal of order dated October 5, 2007 passed by learned District Judge, Panchkula in divorce proceedings under Section 13 -B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 shows that at the time of presentation of the petition on March 8, 2007, the parties made the following statement: We were married on 12.9.2000 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Chandigarh. Out of the wedlock, a son namely Anish was born to petitioner No. 2 Nandana Sachdeva on 4.7.2001. We have not been able to live together as husband and wife because of temperamental differences. It has been decided between us that our son namely Anish shall reside with petitioner No. 2 Nandana Sachdeva. Petitioner No. 2 Nandana Sachdeva shall not claim anything from petitioner No. 1 Nirmal Sachdeva towards present, past and future alimony. In this connection the parties have also entered into a compromise Ex. C1. The parties shall abide with the terms and conditions of the compromise. Our marriage may be dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13 -B of Hindu Marriage Act.;