Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1574 (PNJ)

Sobha Mehra v. State of Haryana

2003-11-18

M.M.KUMAR

body2003
JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J. - This petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for brevity, Criminal Procedure Code) prays for quashing of case FIR 340 dated 17.8.2003, under Sections 498-A/407/323/506/307/406 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sector 29, D.L.F., Gurgaon. The allegations in the FIR are that petitioner No. 2 - Pankaj Mehra, entered into matrimonial alliance with the complainant Ms. Puneeta Mehra on 21.2.2003. There are allegations that after about one and half months demands of dowry were made taunting her that she had not brought diamond jewellery and expensive car. There are further allegations that on 16.8.2003, Smt. Shoba Mehra, petitioner No. 1 who is mother-in-law started fighting with the complainant Ms. Puneeta and despite her request, she did not calm down. On 16.8.2003 at 2.00 PM, when she was on the roof, then both Smt. Shobha Mehra and Pankaj Mehra pushed the complainant from the roof resulting into multiple injuries. When she gained consciousness, the husband of the complainant Pankaj Mehra did not even offer to take her to the hospital. Sh. Kamal Chhibbar of Sector 40-C came there and he took her to the hospital. 2. It has further been averred in the petition that on 3.10.2003 compromise has been arrived at between the parties and the matrimonial dispute has been settled amicable. The compromise deed has been placed on record as Annexure P.2. An amount of Rs. 5 lacs is settled to be paid to Ms. Puneeta Mehra by petitioner No. 2 as full and final settlement as past, present and future maintenance and no claim of any kind in respect of dowry articles or Stridhan remains outstanding A draft No. 01648114 dated 3.10.2003 for a sum of Rs. 5 lacs, drawn at Punjab National Bank West Patel Nagar, New Delhi, has been handed over by Mr. Trikha to Mr. Bhrigu Dutt Sharma. Mr. Sharma has further handed over the bank draft to Ms. Puneeta Mehra who is present in the Court. 3. Notice of the petition to Advocate General, Haryana. 4. On the asking of the Court, Mr. G.P.S. Nagra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana who is present in Court accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 and on behalf of respondent No. 2, Mr. Bhrigu Dutt Sharma has put in appearance. he has even filed reply to the petition. 3. Notice of the petition to Advocate General, Haryana. 4. On the asking of the Court, Mr. G.P.S. Nagra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana who is present in Court accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 and on behalf of respondent No. 2, Mr. Bhrigu Dutt Sharma has put in appearance. he has even filed reply to the petition. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, arguments have been heard. 5. In the reply to the petition, the averments made have been accepted and it was further been averred that the marriage would be dissolved by filing a petition for divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned District Judge. 6. Mr. R.S. Cheema, learned senior counsel has argued that although the offences under section 307 Indian Penal Code are not compoundable under Section 320 Criminal Procedure Code but in cases where such like offences are attached with the matrimonial disputes, the courts could always follow the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, 2003(2) RCR 888. According to the learned counsel, the basic rationale of the judgment in B.S. Joshis case (supra) is to rehabilitate the parties to matrimonial disputes for a smooth future life. According to the learned counsel, the marriage in this case was only few months old and the parties can look for other partners and can live in peace and harmony, which would further advance the social justice, In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on two judgments of this Court in the cases of Ram Dayal and others v. State of Punjab, Crl. Misc. No. 40294-M of 2003, decided on 3.11.2003 and Sunil Aggarwal and others v. State of Punjab and others, Crl. Misc. No. 47194-M of 2003, decided on 14.10.2003. According to the learned counsel in both the cases beside accusation constituting offences under Sections 406 and 498-A Indian Penal Code, other offences like Section 313 Indian Penal Code were also involved. Despite that this Court has quashed those FIRs although Section 320 Criminal Procedure Code does not permit compounding of such offences. 7. Mr. G.P.S. Nagra, the learned State Counsel has argued that under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, the offence under section 307 Indian Penal Code, cannot be compounded because it would be against the basic policy of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. Mr. G.P.S. Nagra, the learned State Counsel has argued that under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, the offence under section 307 Indian Penal Code, cannot be compounded because it would be against the basic policy of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned State counsel has also argued that this Court has no power to compound an offence which is not covered by Section 320 Criminal Procedure Code It may be done by the Supreme Court by invoking Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution and submitted that Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is not available for compounding the offences. However, no objection has been raised by Mr. Bhrigu Dutt Sharma, counsel for the complainant. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the allegations made in the first information report, I am of the considered view that there is no possibility of rehabilitating this marriage by uniting petitioner No. 2 with the complainant-respondent No. 2. The marriage appears to have broken irretrievably. The parties have amicable settled all their disputes and Stridhan etc. appears to have been given by petitioner No. 2 to complainant- respondent No. 2. In addition, a demand draft of Rs. 5 lacs has also been handed over to the complainant-respondent No. 2 in Court. It is, thus, evident that allegations under Section 307 Indian Penal Code were intimately connected with the matrimonial dispute. The police is also preparing a cancellation report. Therefore, quashing of first information report would be conducive for the rehabilitation of petitioner No. 2 independently and the complainant- respondent No. 2 can also start a new life. Petitioner No. 2 as well as complainant are young and both of them are at the threshold of their career. They can always find a better and suitable life partner. If the proceedings in the first information report continue, their harassment and agony would increase manifold. The policy of law as well as the spirit of judgment of the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshis case (supra) is to facilitate the rehabilitation of the young couples because it advances the social justice. It also strengthens the institution of marriage and family. All of them can live their own life according to their own wishes. It is often said that matrimonial life is an emotional bond which can hardly be sorted out by dry logic. It also strengthens the institution of marriage and family. All of them can live their own life according to their own wishes. It is often said that matrimonial life is an emotional bond which can hardly be sorted out by dry logic. Once the logic enters the matrimonial home, it is entry of a bull in the china shop, resulting into arguments and fight which breaks away everything. Therefore, in order to advance the social justice and to avoid any unnecessary harassment and agony to the parties, the first information report and the subsequent proceedings are liable to be quashed. For the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 340 dated 17.8.2003 registered at Police Station Sector 29, D.L.F., Gurgaon and all the subsequent proceedings are quashed. Copy of the order be given Dasti on payment of usual charges. Petition allowed.