HARBANS SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HARBANS Singh, his father and mother have filed the present petition for quashing F.I.R. No. 245 dated 26.9.1998 registered under Sections 406, 498-A and 506, IPC in police station Sadar Ambala. The case against the petitioners was registered on a complaint being filed by Jasbir Kaur- respondent No. 2. According to it, the marriage between Jasbir Kaur and Harbans Singh had been soleminsed on 21.6.1989 in village Chhachhrauli. The father of respondent No. 2 had spent Rs. 2,00,000/- on the marriage and had given various article of dowry as indicated in the list filed with the complaint. After marriage, according to Jasbir Kaur, her husband, father-in- law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, Dewar, Dewrani and grand-father started taunting her about having brought less dowry and for not bringing a motor cycle and colour T.V. instead of Black and White T.V. Although, two sons were born from the wed-lock and a number of presents were given at the time of their birth, the family of her in-laws remained dis-satisfied. They asked her to bring an amount of Rs. 50,000/- and when this demand was not met they started beating her. In order to pacify the demands, the family of Jasbir Kaur had given her Rs. 20,000/-. but even thereafter her in-laws were not satisfied. They had threatened to kill her by giving her poison and in March, 1998 they gave her beatings and threw her out of matrimonial home and refused to hand back the articles of dowry.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the investigation, the parties had also moved an application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act in which she had received a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in addition to all the articles of dowry which were mentioned in the complaint and with the intervention of the respectabls and family friends, the matrimonial ties between them had come to an end by virtue of a consent decree of divorce. After this application was allowed, the petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of the F.I.R. on the ground that the parties have resolved their matrimonial differences and as respondent No. 2 is no longer interested in pursuing the complaint, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding with the trial of the case as respondent No. 2 would not support the averments made by her.

(3.) IN this view of the matter, as the witnesses for the prosecution are not going to depose against the petitioners and it would be in the interest of both the parties in particular and the society at large in case the matrimonial dispute is resolved amicably at the earliest and the parties are not called upon to face one another before the criminal Court lest some unhealed wounds flare up again, I feel that the ends of justice require that the petition be allowed and the F.I.R. be quashed and the proceedings arising therefrom be dropped. Ordered accordingly. Petition allowed.