IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

1. CRM-M-22450-2016 (O&M)

Reserved on: 15.09.2025 Pronounced on: 19.09.2025 BALWANT SINGH RAWAT AND ANOTHER …Petitioners V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS …Respondents 2. CRM-M-20325-2016 (O&M)

Reserved on: 15.09.2025 Pronounced on: 19.09.2025 RAJESH RAWAT AND OTHERS …Petitioners V/S ASHIMA RAWAT AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL ****

Present: Mr. Harish Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners in both cases.

Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG Punjab for respondent No. 1-State in CRM-M-22450-2016.

Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No. 2 in CRM-M-22450-2016 and for respondent No. 1 in CRM-M-20325-2016.

****

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. (ORAL)

1. This common order shall determine two petitions under Sections 482 Cr.P.C., one for quashing FIR No. 22 dated 12.03.2014 under Sections 323, 498-A Indian Penal Code, Police Station Phase XI, Mohali, wherein offence under Section 406 IPC was added later on and another for quashing complaint bearing No. COMA 43 of 2013 dated 16.01.2013 titled Smt. Ashima Rawat and Others Vs. Rajesh Rawat and Others under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19 and 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mohali and all other consequential proceedings arising from the FIR as well as the complaint.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, who are the husband, father-in- law and mother-in-law of respondent wife, submits that petitioner husband and respondent wife were married on 13.12.2006 at Dehradun. Out of the wedlock, two children, a son and a daughter were born. The relationship became sour and respondent wife got registered FIR No. 22 dated 12.03.2014 under Sections 323, 498-A IPC against the petitioners, on false allegations of demand of dowry and ill-treatment. She also filed a complaint under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). During pendency of the complaint, the matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Mohali and a compromise was arrived at between the parties on 07.01.2015. As per the terms of compromise, a sum of Rs. 6,25,000/- each, was to be deposited in the name of both children in the shape of FDR. Respondent wife was to vacate the house in Mohali. It was further settled that respondent wife would withdraw the complaint under Section 12, 17, 18, 19 and 23 of the Act and would also get the FIR quashed.

Apart from Rs. 12,50,000/- which was to be paid to the children in the form of FDR, Rs. 5,00,000/- was also to be paid to respondent wife.

3. It is further argued that petitioner-husband adhered to the terms of the compromise deposited Rs. 12,50,000/- in the name of both children and also filed petition under Section 13-B for divorce by mutual consent, wherein first motion statement was recorded, but on the second motion statement, after receiving Rs. 12,50,000/-, respondent wife withdrew her consent leading to dismissal of the petition, though petitioner husband was ready to pay the remaining amount. Respondent wife also refused to withdraw the case under Section 12, 17, 18, 19 and 23 of the Act of 2005, and to vacate the house at Mohali. Rather, on 05.07.2015, she had thrown boiling water at her in-laws, who remained admitted in ICU in Fortis Hospital, Mohali, due to burn injuries. Referring to Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal and Ors. 2004 (4) RCR (Criminal) 949 and Mohd. Shamim Vs. Nahid Begum AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 757, learned counsel prayed that subject FIR as well as the complaint under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19 and 23 of the Act of 2005 ought to be quashed.

4. Learned counsel for respondent wife, on the other hand, submits that a compromise was indeed arrived at during the proceedings of the case under the Act of 2005, on 07.01.2015, but on account of an ugly incident dated 05.07.2015, respondent No. 2 withdrew her consent in the petition under