Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 176 (PNJ)

Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab

2004-02-16

VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Balwinder Singh, Parvinder Kaur, Harjit Singh, Amarjit Singh and Tejinder Kaur, the petitioners-accused in FIR No. 129 dated 4.5.2002 under sections 406, 498A Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Shimlapuri, Ludhiana are seeking quashing of FIR. 2. I need not delve into details on factual side as the parties have since compromised the matter. The petitioners are relying upon compromise deed dated 22.10.2002 Annexure P/5 which is not disputed by Kiranjit Kaur alias Neetu respondent No. 2-the complainant. Another fact which has been brought to my notice is that the marriage between Harjit Singh petitioner No. 3 and respondent No. 2 has since been dissolved by a decree of divorce. Respondent No. 2, in her reply relies upon Annexure P/1 and P/2, copy of judgment and decree whereby the mutual divorce has been granted. Annexures P/3 and P/4, are the statements of Harjit Singh and Kiranjit Kaur. 3. During the course of arguments, my attention has been drawn to the recitals of the compromise arrived at in which it has been amicably settled that petitioner No. 3 (husband), has agreed to pay Rs. 2.25 lac to respondent in lieu of past, present and future alimony and so far as dowry articles are concerned, those have already been taken by respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 who is present in Court with her father and identified by his counsel has made statement before me that she has already received Rs. 2.5 lac and has no objection if the present proceedings against the petitioners are quashed. 4. Out of this wedlock, there is a female child also who is presently of the age of three years and is with the mother. Since there was no reference to the alimony to the said minor child in the compromise, both sides had made a statement before the learned District Judge, Ludhiana to the effect that minor daughter Harsimranjit Kaur would remain in the custody of respondent No. 2- mother and that she shall have all the rights to claim maintenance for the minor child from her father in accordance with law. There is a reference to this effect in the judgment Annexure P/1 also. 5. Today, petitioner No. 3 in order to avoid any future complication has readily agreed to give Rs. 500/- per month to respondent No. 2 for the maintenance of minor child Harsimranjit Kaur. There is a reference to this effect in the judgment Annexure P/1 also. 5. Today, petitioner No. 3 in order to avoid any future complication has readily agreed to give Rs. 500/- per month to respondent No. 2 for the maintenance of minor child Harsimranjit Kaur. The mode of payment agreed is that petitioner No. 3 would send a crossed cheque in the name of respondent No. 2 has also agreed to it. She further states that she will raise no objection if petitioner No. 3 meets her daughter off and on. 6. In B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., 2003(2) RCR(Crl.) 888 (SC), 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 to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper- technical view would be counter-productive and would act against interest 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 proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code. 7. In Smt. Sobha Mehra and another v. State of Haryana and another, 2004(1) RCR (Crl.) 136 this Court following the ratio of the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshis (supra) has quashed the proceedings in a case under Sections 498-A/406/307 Indian Penal Code considering that even the offence of section 307 Indian Penal Code is intimately connected with the matrimonial dispute. 8. Keeping in the view the facts of the present case, the policy of law as well as the spirit of judgment of the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshis case (supra) and to avoid any unnecessary harassment or agony to the parties, the First Information Report and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are liable to be quashed. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 129 dated 4.5.2002 under Sections 406, 498A Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Shimlapuri, Ludhiana and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 129 dated 4.5.2002 under Sections 406, 498A Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Shimlapuri, Ludhiana and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. Petition allowed.