Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1212 (PNJ)

Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana

2003-08-28

VIRENDER SINGH

body2003
ORDER Virender Singh, J. - Both the parties are present. Madhu Bala respondent No. 2 herein, got a case bearing FIR No. 111 dated 1.2.1994 registered against the present petitioners under Sections 498-A/34 Indian Penal Code at Police Station, City Karnal. The said FIR is annexed as Annexure P-1 with the petition. The present petitioners are husband and mother-in-law of Madhu Bala. They are seeking quashing of the above said FIR, Annexure P-1 on the ground that the matter has been compromised between the parties. 2. Petitioner No. 1 got married with respondent No. 1 on 19.2.1987. The differences arose between the husband and the wife on many counts and ultimately, Madhu Bala left her matrimonial home in April, 1987. There is no issue out of this wedlock. 3. Multiple litigation ensued between the parties on different occasions. I do not feel the necessity to enter into the back flash as the matter now stands compromised. The stage before the trial Court is that the present case is now ripe for defence evidence. 4. Notice of motion was issued to both the respondents. 5. Madhu Bala respondent No. 2 has filed her reply by way of affidavit and the same is taken on record. State of Haryana, respondent No. 1 has not filed any reply. It is otherwise not required for the reason that both the sides have patched up their disputes. Madhu Bala owns the compromise Annexure P-2 dated 23.4.2003. Even otherwise it is worth mentioning here that a decree of divorce has already been passed between the parties. Both have remarried. Petition No. 1 is having one daughter from the second marriage. Similarly, respondent Madhu Bala is having two children from the second marriage. As the matter relates to the year 1987, 16 years have gone by now and there is no grudge left between the parties. As per the compromise, Madhu Bala respondent No. 2 has also received a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- (Rs. One lac seventy five thousand) on account of permanent alimony in case from petitioner No. 1. Respondent Madhu Bala has also agreed to withdraw all other cases. 6. Madhu Bala is present today in Court. She has been identified by Mr. R.S. Mamli, her counsel. 1,75,000/- (Rs. One lac seventy five thousand) on account of permanent alimony in case from petitioner No. 1. Respondent Madhu Bala has also agreed to withdraw all other cases. 6. Madhu Bala is present today in Court. She has been identified by Mr. R.S. Mamli, her counsel. She has also made an oral statement before me to the effect that she has no objection if the present FIR registered at her instance against the present petitioners is quashed. Mr. Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his arguments has relied upon the latest judgment rendered by the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana, 2003(4) Supreme Court Cases 615. He has also relied upon another judgment of this Court rendered in Col. Shamsher Singh v. State of Haryana, 2001(1) RCR(Criminal) 234. In the said case, the FIR was quashed on the basis of compromise even after the accused had earned conviction and their appeal was pending. While quashing the FIR in B.S. Joshis case (supra), their Lordships have observed as under :- "14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife of coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceeding to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code." Keeping in view the facts of the present case and the law laid down in B.S. Joshis case (supra) I am of the view that the continuation of further proceedings in the present FIR would be sheer abuse of the process of court and as such the present FIR and further proceedings arising therefrom are liable to be quashed. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 111 dated 1.2.1994, under Sections 498-A/34 Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, City Karnal and the further proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 111 dated 1.2.1994, under Sections 498-A/34 Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, City Karnal and the further proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. Petition allowed.