Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1103 (PNJ)

Ram Singh v. Amar Kaur

2008-05-26

RAJESH BINDAL

body2008
JUDGMENT RAJESH BINDAL J 1. The prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C is for quashing of complaint No.29 filed on April 5, 2002 under Section 494 IPC titled as Amar Kaur Versus Ram Singh and others and the summoning order dated July 7, 2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rup Nagar. 2. Briefly the facts as stated in the petition, are that the petitioner No.1 was working in the Postal Department. The marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent took place in 1956. Out of the wedlock one female child namely, Pal Kaur was born. As the parties could not pull on together, they started living separately. Ultimately with the intervention of the villagers and the panchayat, the relationship ended in the year 1960. However, the petitioner No.1 continued to take care of his daughter Pal Kaur and was also regularly in touch with the parents and brothers of the respondent. With the intervention of the parents of the respondent, petitioner No.1 was re-married with maternal sister of father of the complainant in the year 1962. Out of the new wedlock of petitioner No.1 with petitioner No.2 five children were born. All of them are married and are settled and the petitioners are having grand children as well. 3. Ever since, the marriage of petitioner No.1 was solemnized with petitioner No.2 wayback in 1962 and till the year 2000 the respondent did not have any grouse. The problem started only when a suit for maintenance was filed by the respondent in which finally the maintenance was fixed @ Rs.1500/-per month vide judgment dated November 23, 2005. During the pendency of the suit, the impugned compliant was filed on April 5, 2002 in which the petitioners have been summoned to face trial under Section 494 IPC. 4. It is in this factual matrix that the petitioners are before this Court seeking quashing of the complaint and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. 5. In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the filing of the complaint by the respondent against the petitioners at such a belated stage nearly after 40 years of marriage of petitioner No.1 with petitioner No.2 is nothing else but abuse of process of law. The marriage was well within the knowledge of the respondent as it was arranged by the father of the respondent-complainant. The marriage was well within the knowledge of the respondent as it was arranged by the father of the respondent-complainant. Petitioner No.2 is maternal sister of father of respondent-complainant. The parents and brother of respondent attended the marriage. The petitioner No.1 was regularly in touch with his daughter born out from the earlier wedlock with respondent and had even solemnized her marriage. The complaint against the petitioners otherwise also is liable to be quashed on account of delay. The alleged occurrence took place wayback in 1962. The complaint was filed 40 years thereafter on April 5, 2002. Though as such there is no limitation, the respondent-complainant cannot deny the knowledge of the marriage of petitioner No.1 with petitioner No.2. The same having been attended by the parents and brother of the respondent and also the petitioner No.2, the second wife of petitioner No.1 being her relative only. Reliance has been placed upon Manohar Lal Sehgal v. State of Punjab,1990(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 676. 6. In response to the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the marriage of petitioner No.1 with respondent-complainant is duly proved in the civil suit filed by the respondent for grant of maintenance immediately after the respondent-complainant came to know about the marriage of petitioner No.1 with petitioner No.2. In the year 2000 the suit was filed, which was followed by the impugned complaint. The petitioner No.1 has not been able to prove his divorce with respondent-complainant. Even the maintenance fixed by the court below is not being paid by the petitioner No.1 to respondent-complainant who is dependent upon that only having no other source of income. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 7. A perusal of the summoning order passed in the complaint filed by the respondent shows that admittedly the marriage of the petitioner No.1 with petitioner No.2 was solemnised wayback in April, 1962. It is admitted that the brother of the respondent-complainant had also participated in the marriage, the complaint came to be filed on April 5, 2002. Prior thereto, a civil suit was filed by the respondent-complainant on July 22, 2000 for declaration and recovery claiming the maintenance therein. It is admitted that the brother of the respondent-complainant had also participated in the marriage, the complaint came to be filed on April 5, 2002. Prior thereto, a civil suit was filed by the respondent-complainant on July 22, 2000 for declaration and recovery claiming the maintenance therein. As an interim measure, maintenance of Rs.500/-was fixed by the Court, however while deciding the suit finally, the maintenance payable by the petitioner No.1 to complainant was fixed as Rs.1500/-per month from the date of filing of the suit. The marriage in the present case took place wayback in 1962 and the complaint in the present case was filed in 2002 nearly 40 years thereafter. Though strictly in terms of provisions of 468(2) Cr.P.C, the same may not be time barred as such as for the offence alleged, the sentence is more than three years imprisonment, however, still considering the inordinate delay in approaching the Court when even admittedly respondent-complainant had come to know about the marriage prior thereto when she had filed a suit two years before the filing of the complaint in 2000 still no action was taken for initiating the criminal proceedings. Right to speedy trial has been recognised as part of Article 21 of the Constitution by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Though the case may not fall strictly therein however, still this Court would not lose sight of the fact that the effort in the present case is to launch criminal proceedings against the petitioners nearly 40 years after the alleged offence was committed and the same can very well be quashed on that ground alone. 8. As this Court is exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction in the present case under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the equities are to be balanced. Petitioner no.1 in the present case admittedly had not paid the arrears of maintenance as fixed by the Court. The submission was that even payment had not been cleared as per the interim order passed by the Court fixing the same at Rs.500/-per month, the maintenance was finally fixed at Rs.1500/-per month vide judgment dated November 23, 2005 against which an appeal has also been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, in my considered opinion, the case in hand is fit where the complaint deserves to be quashed, accordingly, the complaint and all subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, in my considered opinion, the case in hand is fit where the complaint deserves to be quashed, accordingly, the complaint and all subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed. However, the quashing of the complaint against the petitioners in the present case will be subject to the condition that petitioner No.1 will clear the entire arrears of maintenance payable to the respondent-complainant in terms of the judgment of learned Additional District Judge upholding the judgment and decree of the trial Court within a period of three months from today. However, in case of failure, the present petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed and the proceedings against the petitioners shall continue. The petition is disposed of. Order accordingly.