Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 810 (PNJ)

Shelly Tuli v. State of Haryana

2004-08-02

VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Shelly Tuli, his mother Parkash Lata and father Gupral Tuli were initially booked in this case bearing FIR No. 179 dated 29.12.1999, under Sections 498-A, 406 Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Pinjore, District Panchkula. 2. Gurpal Tuli is stated to have died during the proceedings. The case is now fixed for prosecution evidence before the trial Court. Some evidence has already been recorded. 3. I need not enter into the details of the case as both the sides amicably settled the matter. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have got the marriage dissolved by mutual consent decree passed under Section 13(1)(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Annexure P-4 is the copy of the judgment. It is also stated that the respondent has also withdrawn a petition filed by her and on behalf of her daughter under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code Annexure P-5 is the copy of the order. 4. Short reply has been filed by respondent No. 2 by way of an affidavit admitting the contents of the present petition. Respondent No. 2 is otherwise present in the Court. She has been identified by her counsel Shri I.S. Sidhu, Advocate. Father of respondent No. 2 is also present. A sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- was given at the time of filing of the petition for mutual consent divorce. Another sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- has now been handed over to respondent No. 2 today in the Court. The details of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- is as under :- 1. Rs. 2,25,000/- as cash at the time of grant of mutual consent decree of divorce; 2. Rs. 80,000/- vide two drafts dated 27.7.2004 for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each; 3. Rs. 20,000/- in cash handed over to respondent No. 2 in Court. 5. Respondent No. 2 admits the acceptance of the aforesaid amount. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners then contends that it is mutually agreed between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- shall be deposited in the name of minor daughter namely Aditi who is the age of five years at present and is presently living with the mother. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners then contends that it is mutually agreed between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- shall be deposited in the name of minor daughter namely Aditi who is the age of five years at present and is presently living with the mother. The said amount would be deposited in the shape of FDR through respondent No. 2 to be renewed from time to time up to the stage of attaining the age of majority of the minor daughter namely Aditi. FDR No. 529969 dated 2.8.2004 is the photo copy of the original in this regard. 7. It is also amicably decided between the parties that the daughter will remain with the mother. Respondent No. 2 has also agreed that in future, she will not claim maintenance from petitioner No. 1 on her behalf or on behalf of her minor daughter. 8. Learned counsel for both the sides have relied upon the judgment of the Honble Apex Court rendered in B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2003(2) RCR(Crl.) 888 (SC). They have also relied upon another latest judgment of this Court rendered in Smt. Sobha Mehra and another v. State of Haryana and another, 2004(1) RCR(Crl.) 136 (P&H). In B.S. Joshis case their Lordships of the Apex Court observed as under :- "14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A 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 demand of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter-productive and would act against interest of women and against 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." 9. No doubt, the trial is in progress but I am of the view that continuation of the trial any further would be sheer abuse of the process of the Court as the parties have now amicably decided the matter. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code." 9. No doubt, the trial is in progress but I am of the view that continuation of the trial any further would be sheer abuse of the process of the Court as the parties have now amicably decided the matter. The complaint on account of the compromise cannot secure conviction of the petitioners. So, in order to avoid unnecessary harassment to the parties, I am of the view that present FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom deserves to be quashed. 10. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed. FIR, Annexure P-1 and all the proceedings arising therefrom qua the present petitioners are hereby quashed. Petition allowed.