Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2125 (PNJ)

Harjit Kaur v. Jaswinder Singh Bhogal

2007-12-06

L.N.MITTAL

body2007
Judgment L.N.Mittal, J. 1. Harjit Kaur has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of criminal complaint dated 23.4.2002 (Annexure P-1) filed by her husband Jaswinder Singh-respondent as well as for quashing of summoning order dated 9.8.2002 (Annexure P-2) and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom. 2. Respondent filed divorce petition against the petitioner under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 whereas the petitioner filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The petitioner in the written statement filed in the divorce petition, inter alia pleaded as under :- "As a matter of fact, the petitioner is a man of bad character and even goes to another women. On 26th December, 1998, the petitioner forcibly asked the respondent to go with Daljit Seera who is owner of petrol pump on Hazipur Road, Dasuya to Dalhousie at 12 Oclock. When she refused to go with him, the petitioner gave beatings to the respondent and turned out from the house in just three wearings and also retained her gold ornaments and other valuable articles and further refused to maintain her. No woman would like to level such allegations against her husband, but in this respect when a protector of the wife becomes the devil then only God can save her." Similar allegations were levelled by the petitioner in her petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The respondent alleging the aforesaid averments of the petitioner to be defamatory, filed the impugned complaint (Annexure P-1) under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has been summoned to face trial for the said offence vide summoning order dated 9.8.2002 (Annexure P-2). 3 The aforesaid divorce petition stands dismissed vide judgment dated 27.3.2003 of learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur (Annexure R-1). Learned counsel for the respondent states that respondents appeal against the said judgment is pending in this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that during the pendency of the divorce petition, the petitioner withdrew her petition which she had filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 5. The respondent in his divorce petition has also levelled serious allegations against the petitioner. Even the respondent alleged that the petitioner used to leave the house without his permission. 5. The respondent in his divorce petition has also levelled serious allegations against the petitioner. Even the respondent alleged that the petitioner used to leave the house without his permission. Learned Additional District Judge in judgment Annexure R-1 observed that both the parties have failed to prove their allegations and they were indulging in mud slinging. 6. The petitioner had also moved application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure during the pendency of divorce petition for taking action against the respondent herein, for levelling false allegations against her, but the said application was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment Annexure R-1. It is observed that it is not expedient in the interest of justice to take action under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as both the parties were equally to be blamed as they were indulging in mud slinging against each other. 7. Perusal of the impugned summoning order (Annexure P-2) reveals that the respondent in his preliminary evidence appeared as his own witness as CW-1 and reiterated the allegations made in the complaint and did not lead any other evidence. Consequently, it cannot be said that reputation of the respondent has been lowered in the estimation of anybody else. In fact, there is no such specific averment even in the impugned complaint. Therefore, from the averments in the impugned complaint, prima facie offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 8. On the contrary, the alleged defamatory imputations were made by the petitioner in judicial proceedings to which none-else except the petitioner and the respondent were party. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioner has published the alleged defamatory imputations so as to harm the reputation of the respondent in the estimation of anybody else. 9. It is also worth mentioning that even learned Additional District Judge in judgment (Annexure R-1) did not hold that the allegations levelled by the petitioner were false. On the contrary, the said allegations were held to be not proved. Moreover, appeal against the said judgment is pending and the petitioner has a right to press the aforesaid allegations in the said appeal. 10. On the contrary, the said allegations were held to be not proved. Moreover, appeal against the said judgment is pending and the petitioner has a right to press the aforesaid allegations in the said appeal. 10. It is also worth noticing that the aforesaid allegations have been made by the petitioner to defend the divorce petition filed by the respondent and it cannot be said that the said allegations have been made with intent to harm the reputation of the respondent. Moreover, the respondent himself also made some what similar allegations against the petitioner, who was also aggrieved thereby, but in view of the serious allegations made by the parties against each other, learned Additional District Judge did not think it proper to initiate action against the respondent when application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the petitioner. In view thereof, since both the parties have indulged in mud slinging against each other, it would be expedient in the interest of justice if the impugned complaint is also quashed since petitioners application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has also been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge being not expedient in the interest of justice to take action against the respondent under said provision. The ends of justice, therefore, demand that the impugned complaint should also be quashed. 11. In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned complaint dated 23.4.2002 (Annexure P-1) filed by Jaswinder Singh-respondent as well as summoning order dated 9.8.2002 (Annexure P-2), are quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.