The mere breach of a civil contract does not amount to a criminal offence.

Ujagar Singh, J.

1. Shrimati Rajni, Petitioner No. 3 lodged First Information Report No. 30, dated 23-2-1987, under sections 406/498-A of the Indian Penal Code "the Code in short), in Police Station Division No. 3, Jalandhar. A petition for quashing was filed in this Court and the FIR was quashed on 14-1-1988 on the basis of a compromise. An application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had also been filed by petitioner No. 3 against respondent No. 2 Yogesh Kumar. On 27.2.1987 a compromise was entered into between the parties and the same has been reproduced in paragraph of the petition. The relevant terms of the compromise were that the said case, FIR No. 30 dated 23-2-1987 and the application filed under section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure were to be withdrawn by petitioner No. 3 and in lieu of the dowry articles, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was to be given by respondent No. 2 to petitioner No. 1 for onward transmission to petitioner No. 3. Petitioner No. 1 took the responsibility of implementing the compromise between the parties. Petitioner No. 3 swore an affidavit on 7-3-1987 and the same is Annexure Pl. According to this affidavit, petitioner No. 3 was paid the said amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- by her husband and she had abandoned all claims in respect of dowry and past and future maintenance. Yogesh Kumar, respondent No. 2 also swore an affidavit which is Annexure P2 and therein he stated that in pursuance of the said agreement, he had handed over a demand draft No. 950040 BN/9 dated 27.2.1987, issued by the State Bark of India, Ludhiana, drawn in the name of Dhan Raj Thapar, in the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- which was to be paid to petitioner No.3 Smt. Rajni, on the passing of final decree for divorce on the basis of a joint petition under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and in case no such decree was passed, the amount of the demand draft had to be returned to respondent No. 2 Yogesh Kumar. It is further averred that petitioner No. 3 was to withdraw criminal cases and respondent No. 2 was to withdraw the civil suit pending in a Civil Court at Jalandhar.

2. A joint petition for a divorce by consent was filed in the Court of the District Judge, Jalandhar and it was specifically averred in paragraph 5 thereof that a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- through Dhan Raj Thapar, petitioner No. 1 herein, was paid vide the said demand draft in full and final settlement of the dowry articles and no claim was left for any performance against each other and petitioner No. 3 had accepted the same and had waived all her rights, as. already mentioned above. This consent decree for divorce was granted on 17-12-1987. The order and decree are Annexure P 4.

3. Respondent No. 2 on 9-6-1987 filed the impugned criminal complaint against the petitioners on the allegations that according to the compromise, the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was to be delivered after the decree for divorce by consent was passed under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and in case it was not granted, the money in question was to be refunded to respondent No. 2. Further allegations are that the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid even before consent decree for divorce by mutual consent was passed thereafter, petitioner No. 3 was not agreeing to divorce by consent and was, rather, demanding an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- more before agreeing to a divorce decree by mutual consent. Certain other facts in this respect have been mentioned in the complaint and in a nutshell, the complaint states that the complainant respondent No. 2 ultimately came to know that much against the conditions, petitioner No. 1 got the demand drift encashed on 2-3-1987 and delivered the amount to petitioners No. 2 and 3 and refused to give the same to the complainant. This complaint was filed under sections 406, 420 and 383 of the Code.

4. I have been shown the summoning order, according to which, after recording the evidence of the complainant respondent No. 2, the learn