Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1283 (PNJ)

Pirthipal Singh v. State Of Punjab

2005-12-14

RAJIVE BHALLA

body2005
Judgment Rajive Bhalla, J. 1. Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing of orders dated 12.2.1998 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist class, Barnala (Annexure P-4) and the order dated 1.4.1998, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barnala (Annexure P-5), whereby the petitioners were summoned in FIR No. 6 dated 25.1.1997 registered under Sections 406, 420, 494, 498-A, 148 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station Bhadaur, Tehsil Barnala, Distt. Sangrur. 2. The marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was solemnised on 1.12.1993. It is alleged that in June 1995, they separated and respondent No. 2 started living with her parents at Bhadaur. A matrimonial dispute arose between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2, which led to numerous litigations. Respondent No. 2 lodged FIR No. 6 dated 25.1.1997 registered under Sections 406, 420, 494, 498-A, 148 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station Bhadaur, Tehsil Barnala, Distt. Sangrur. 3. After conducting an enquiry, the police submitted a cancellation report to the court of competent jurisdiction. Respondent No. 2 filed objections to the proposed cancellation, which were accepted vide order dated 12.2.1998 and the petitioners were summoned. The aforementioned order was impugned by way of a revision, which was dismissed on 1.4.1998. Thereafter, the petitioners impugned the aforementioned orders as also the FIR in the present petition. 4. During the pendency of the present petition, the petitioners filed Crl. Misc. No. 62135 of 2005, praying therein that Crl. Misc. No. 11297-M of 1998 be disposed of in view of the compromise/statement recorded by respondent No. 2 before the Additional District Judge, Barnala on 5.3.2003, in proceedings under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. It appears that with the intervention of friends, relatives and respectables, the parties have arrived at a settlement, with the object of resolving all their differences. As a result thereof, parties filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, for the grant of a decree of divorce by mutual consent. On 5.3.2003, respondent No. 2 herein made a statement before the Additional District Judge, Barnala that her matrimonial dispute with her husband had been compromised and she would withdraw all the cases against her husband. On 5.3.2003, respondent No. 2 herein made a statement before the Additional District Judge, Barnala that her matrimonial dispute with her husband had been compromised and she would withdraw all the cases against her husband. Petitioner No. 1 made a statement to the same effect before the Additional District Judge on 8.9.2003. Thereafter, vide judgment dated 8.9.2003, the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was dissolved by grant of a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The petition for grant of divorce, the statements made by the parties therein and a copy of the judgment, dissolving the marriage are annexed as Annexures P-6 to P-9 with Crl. Misc. No. 62135 of 2005. 5. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the FIR was lodged, pursuant to a matrimonial dispute. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have resolved their differences, as a result whereof their marriage has been dissolved by grant of a decree of divorce. They have agreed that proceedings pursuant to the present FIR, be brought to an end so as to enable them to lead their lives afresh. It is further contended that in view of the facts, narrated herein before, the witnesses, to be produced by respondent No. 2 are not likely to support the prosecution case and, therefore, the continuance of the proceedings would be an exercise in futility a wastage of Court time and would be an impediment in the path of petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 leading their lives afresh. 6. On the basis of the aforementioned facts, counsel for the petitioners prays that the FIR and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed. It is contended that as the parties have resolved their differences, obtained a decree of divorce, executed a written compromise, the prosecution of the FIR would be an exercise in futility. In terms of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2003(2) RCR(Criminal) 888 (SC) the present FIR, as also subsequent proceedings, emanating therefrom, be quashed. 7. Counsel for respondent No. 2 has accepted the facts, stated herein before and has prayed that as petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have settled their differences, the present FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom the quashed. 8. 7. Counsel for respondent No. 2 has accepted the facts, stated herein before and has prayed that as petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have settled their differences, the present FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom the quashed. 8. Learned State counsel submits that as petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have resolved their differences, the State would not stand in their way and, therefore, he has no objection, if the FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The facts leading upto the filing of the present petition have been enumerated herein before and do not require repetition. 11. It is no doubt true that some of the offences complained of, are non- compoundable. However, the Honble Supreme Court while dealing with a similar controversy in B.S. Joshi and others case (supra) has held that in cases arising from matrimonial disputes, where parties have settled their differences, criminal proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute should not be permitted to linger on and should be quashed. It is, thus, apparent that the High Court, in the exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is empowered, where offences complained of, arise from matrimonial disputes and where parties have bona fide resolved their differences, to quash those proceedings. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, as petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have resolved their differences by way of a bona fide settlement, to permit the prosecution of the FIR to continue, in my opinion, would be an exercise in futility and a wastage of public time and money. In view of the settlement, the complainant and her witnesses are not likely to support the prosecution case. It is a fit case where this Court ought to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to put an end to these futile criminal proceedings. Consequently, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 6 dated 25.1.1997, against the petitioners, registered under Sections 406, 420, 498-A, 148 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station Bhadaur, Tehsil Barnala, Distt. Sangrur, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.