Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 506 (PNJ)

Partap Singh v. State Of Punjab

2007-03-17

VIRENDER SINGH

body2007
Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. Through the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No.267 dated 15.10.2004, registered at Police Station sadar Ferozepur, under Sections 406/498-A/120-B IPC (Annexure P-1), at the instance of his wife Sukhwinder Kaur (respondent No.2) primarily on the ground that the petitioner and respondent No.2 have taken a decree of divorce by way of mutual consent under Sec.13-B of the hindu Marriage Act vide judgment dated 17.02.2005 (Annexure P-2), passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ferozepur and that the parties have amicably arrived at a decision of no return. As per the office report, respondent No.2 has refused to take the summons and the court summons were affixed at her residence. The service is, thus, complete. I have heard Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. Crl. Misc. No.25168-M of 2005 2 2. At the initial stage this court vide order dated May 09, 2005 observed as under:- Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to order (Annexure P2) granting divorce by mutual consent under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Learned counsel submitted that from the said divorce order, it is more than obvious that the parties have since settled all their disputes. Nonetheless, since since there is no specific mention that they have also settled the dispute pertaining to the pending criminal case, a copy of this order (Annexure P2) be sent to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, who shall summon the parties and record their statements towards clarification as to whether they also intended to enter into compromise in respect of the criminal case. Learned CJM shall submit a report with statements of the parties within four weeks of receipt of a copy of this order. List as and when the report of learned Magistrate is received. 3 Further, proceedings to remain stayed till then. Pursuant to the said order, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, ferozepur had recorded the statement of the petitioner, his wife (respondent No.2), Gurdeep Singh son of Veer Singh (father of respondent No.2) and submitted its report on 17.6.2005. The said report reads as under:- 4. Kindly refer to the Crl. Misc. No.25168-M of 2005 with the title Partap Singh Versus State of Punjab and others. I have the honour to submit my report as under:- Crl. Misc. The said report reads as under:- 4. Kindly refer to the Crl. Misc. No.25168-M of 2005 with the title Partap Singh Versus State of Punjab and others. I have the honour to submit my report as under:- Crl. Misc. No.25168-M of 2005 3 5 That in pursuance of order dt.9.5.2005 passed by His lordship Justice Uma Nath Singh Judge, Punjab and Haryana high Court, in Crl. Misc. No.25168-M of 2005, notice was given to both the parties and statement of Partap Singh, husband of Sukhwinder Kaur as well as statement of Gurdeep singh, father of Sukhwinder Kaur and statement of sukhwinder Kaur were recorded; wherein they have stated that parties intended to enter into a compromise with regard to the criminal proceedings pending between the parties in this court. The original statements are also being forwarded for ready reference. Hence the report. Thanking you. Yours faithfully, enclosed:- 3. statements (Surinder Mohan) PCS, of witnesses. Chief Judicial Magistrate, ferozepur. My attention has also been drawn to the statement of sukhwinder Kaur (respondent No.2) dated 11.6.2005 which reads as under:- CW.2: 6 Sukhwinder Kaur daughter of Gurdeep Singh @ bagicha Singh s/o Veer Singh, aged 22 years, housewife, resident of Machhiwara made the following statement on solemn affirmation:- My marriage was solemnized with Partap Singh. After marriage, we could not maintain cordial relations. The case was registered against the accused on the basis of a complaint submitted by my father. Panchayats of our both the villages had got a compromise effected between us. On crl. Misc. No.25168-M of 2005 4 the basis of this compromise, Partap Singh and I had taken divorce with our mutual consent. A compromise was also effected in the present case. Partap Singh has returned my articles and had paid me the maintenance allowance. So, I request that the instant case may please be dismissed. I shall have no objection in this regard. ROandac Chief Judicial Magistrate, sd/- Sukhwinder Kaur Ferozepur 11.6.2005 7 On the basis of the aforesaid factual position, Mr. Sharma submits that continuation of the proceedings in the instant case against the petitioner would amount to unnecessary harassment and agony with no positive result for either side. In other words, it would amount to abuse of process of court and, therefore, in order to secure the ends of justice, the instant FIR and all the subsequent proceedings arisen therefrom qua the petitioner may be quashed. In other words, it would amount to abuse of process of court and, therefore, in order to secure the ends of justice, the instant FIR and all the subsequent proceedings arisen therefrom qua the petitioner may be quashed. In support of his contentions Mr. Sharma has relied upon judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court rendered in B. S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, 2003 (2) RCR (Criminal) 888 and a Full Bench Judgment of this Court rendered in Dharambir Vs. State of haryana, 2005 (3) RCR 426. 8. I find substance in the submissions advanced by Mr. Sharma and am of the view that continuing with the proceedings of the instant case, in the aforesaid factual backdrop, would be sheer abuse of process of Court. Crl. Misc. No.25168-M of 2005 5 resultantly, the instant petition is allowed and FIR No.267 dated 15.10.2004, registered at Police Station Sadar Ferozepur, under sections 406/498-A/120-B IPC and all the subsequent proceedings arisen therefrom qua the petitioner are hereby quashed.