Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1136 (PNJ)

State of Haryana v. Phuman Singh

2003-08-13

S.S.SARON

body2003
JUDGMENT S.S. Saron, J. - This order shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 425-DBA of 1991 and Crl. Revision No. 660 of 1991 as both arise out of the same FIR. 2. The Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State of Haryana against the order dated 15.6.1991 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri on 15.6.1991, whereby he has acquitted all the accused-respondents for the offence under Sections 498-A, 405, 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal code (Indian Penal Code, for short). The criminal revision petition is by the complainant against the said order of acquittal. 3. Jaipal Kaur-complainant submitted an application to the effect that her marriage was solemnized on 26.6.1982 with Inderjit Singh (respondent No. 4). After marriage, her in-laws started harassing her for dowry articles and she disclosed the demands of her in-laws to her brother. As a result of this all the respondents started harassing her more and threatened that she would be killed. Inderjit Singh (respondent No. 4) told her that if she brought Rs. 35,000/- in cash, then he would not demand anything more. This money is stated to be given to Inderjit Singh (respondent No. 4). However, after getting the money, the harassment continued. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR No. 102 dated 13.11.1985 was registered at Police Station Chhappar for the offences as indicated above. As already noticed, the respondents have been acquitted by the learned trial Magistrate which is assailed by State of Haryana and the complainant. 4. On 23.7.2003 during the pendency of the appeal Shri G.S. Bhatia learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 5 made a statement to the effect that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have since died. He also stated that the complainant has settled all her disputes and entered into a compromise with her husband Inderjit Singh (respondent No. 4). Shri R.K. Dhiman, Advocate, learned counsel for the complainant took time to verity these facts and on the adjourned date i.e. 30.7.2003, he on instructions from the complainant stated that a sum of Rs. 31,000/- is payable by the accused to the complainant in Court. Sh. Bhatia stated that the said amount would be paid to the complainant. Bank draft No. 223292 dated 9.8.2003 drawn on the Punjab National Bank at Chhappar for a sum of Rs. 31,000/- has been tendered in Court today. 31,000/- is payable by the accused to the complainant in Court. Sh. Bhatia stated that the said amount would be paid to the complainant. Bank draft No. 223292 dated 9.8.2003 drawn on the Punjab National Bank at Chhappar for a sum of Rs. 31,000/- has been tendered in Court today. The said draft has been handed over to Jaipal Kaur, who is present in Court. Learned counsel for complainant-Jaipal Kaur on instructions from her states that he has no more claim against respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and that the appeal may be dismissed. He states that Criminal Revision No. 550 of 19912 filed by Jaipal Kaur may also be dismissed as not pressed. Besides, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 having died, the appeal against them stands abated in terms of Section 394(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Criminal Procedure Code - for short). 5. However, Shri J.P. Dhull learned Assistant Advocate General appearing for the appellant-State contends that from the material and evidence on record, the offences attributed to the accused-respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in any case are made out and they are liable to be convicted and sentenced. Besides, the appeal is not liable to be dismissed on the basis of a mere compromise as the offences attributed to the accused are not compoundable offences. 6. In response Sh. G.S. Bhatia, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 5 has placed on record the compromise which was entered into between the complainant and her husband Inderjit Singh (respondent No. 4). He also placed on record an affidavit dated 22.2.1999 of the complainant to the effect that in view of the compromise she does not want to pursue her complaint under Sections 406, 498-A Indian Penal Code against the accused persons and she wants to withdraw her case against them. In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the stand taken by the complainant in Court today and the compromise as also the affidavit of the complainant, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. It may be noticed that Inderjit Singh (respondent No. 4) husband of the complainant filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking a decree of divorce by dissolution of marriage between the parties. 7. It may be noticed that Inderjit Singh (respondent No. 4) husband of the complainant filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking a decree of divorce by dissolution of marriage between the parties. The said petition was accepted ex-parte by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri on 3.8.1992. The complainant Jaipal Kaur, after she came to know of the ex-parte decree of divorce, filed an application for setting aside the same in the said Court. During the pendency of the proceedings for setting aside the ex-parte decree, a compromise was arrived at between the parties, which is placed on record as Annexure A-1. The terms of the compromise are as follows :- "1. That party of the first part was the wife of the party of the second part and both the parties had filed several litigations against each other in various courts. 2. That the parties to this agreement have now compromise all of their litigations pending in various civil Courts at Jagadhri and now there is no dispute between the parties. 3. That the party of the first part shall move an application before Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, for permission to withdraw the case under Sections 498-A, 406 Indian Penal Code against the party of the second part and others. 4. That the party of the first part has received lump sum maintenance from the party of the second part and she admits the ex-parte decree of divorce passed against her to be correct. The party of the first part shall withdraw her application for setting aside the ex-parte decree from the Court of Sh. C.B. Jaglian, A.D.J., Jagadhri. 5. That the appeal filed by the relations of party of the first part before the Court of Sh. C.B. Jaglian shall be withdrawn by the appellants and the suit filed before the lower Court by the relations of the second party shall be withdrawn by them. 6. That both the parties are bound by the terms of this agreement and if they fail to abide by this compromise, the facts pleaded in this agreement shall not be taken to be admission on their part. Hence this agreement has been executed in the presence of witnesses." 8. The complainant also made a statement before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, accepting the decree dated 3.8.1982. Hence this agreement has been executed in the presence of witnesses." 8. The complainant also made a statement before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, accepting the decree dated 3.8.1982. On the basis of the said statement the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed as withdrawn the application for restoration of the petition for divorce. 9. In terms of the compromise it was agreed between the parties that they shall withdraw the respective litigations initiated by them against each other. Besides Jaipal Kaur-complainant had received lumpsum maintenance from her husband and she admitted the ex-parte decree of divorce passed against her to be correct. It was also agreed that Jaipal Kaur shall withdraw her application for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The said application has accordingly been withdrawn. In the affidavit dated 22.2.1999 Jaipal Kaur has deposed that she has compromised all the litigations with the accused persons including the divorce petition and other litigations pending before the various Courts at Jagadhari. In view of the said compromise, she does not want to pursue her complaint under Sections 406, 498-Indian Penal Code against the accused persons and she wants to withdraw her application. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the State that the offences being non-compoundable the appeal cannot be dismissed on the mere ground that there being a compromise between the complainant and the accused persons, may be considered. It is appropriate to note that the dispute between the parties is a matrimonial one arising out of the marriage between the complainant Jaipal Kaur and Inderjit Singh (respondent No. 4). The Honble Supreme Court in the case : B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, 2003(2) RCR(Crl.) 888 (SC) considered the question as regards compounding of offences and quashing proceedings under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code where the matrimonial dispute has been settled between husband and wife either by the wife agreeing to re-join the matrimonial home or mutual separation of husband and his wife as a result whereof both sides approach the High Court and jointly pray for quashing the proceedings or the FIR or complaint filed by the wife under Sections 498-A and 406 Indian Penal Code can be prayer be declined on the ground that since the offences are non-compoundable under Section 320 Criminal Procedure Code and, therefore, it is not permissible to quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complain. It was held that in matrimonial matters it becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. The High Court may even quash proceedings where parties settle their dispute and Section 320 of Criminal Procedure Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power for quashing complaint in matrimonial disputes. 11. Keeping in view the ratio of the said judgment and the fact that the respondents have been acquitted by the trial Court as also the fact that all claims have been settled between the parties, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose would accrue in continuing the appeal. 12. For the foregoing reasons and circumstances, I am not inclined to agree with the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the State and accordingly dismiss the appeal. The appeal against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall, however, stand abated in terms of Section 394(1) Criminal Procedure Code Criminal Revision No. 660 of 1991 also stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.