RANJIT KAUR Vs. MANWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present criminal revision petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.7.1990 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kharar, whereby he allowed the Assistant Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution in terms of Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.).

(2.) THE facts leading to the case are that the petitioner Ranjit Kaur was married to Manwinder Singh respondent No. 1 on 27.9.1982 at Mohali. It is alleged that her parents gave gifts in marriage as desired by Manwinder Singh respondent No. 1 and his parents respondent Nos. 2 and 3. After marriage, the behaviour of the respondents was not cordial and they had harassed the petitioner by coaxing her that she had brought inadequate dowry. They used to abuse and misbehave with her. When the respondent No. 1 suffered losses, the father of the petitioner gave him Rs. 30,000/-. However, the respondents were still not satisfied and went on increasing their demands. Demand for another sum of Rs. 20,000/- was raised by the respondents at the time of operation of Ram Kaur respondent No. 3 in March 1988. The petitioner and her parents were unable to fulfil this demand. Respondent No. 1 Manwinder Singh had gone out of station on a business tour on 16.9.1988. At that time respondent No. 3 Smt. Ram Kaur mother-in-law of the petitioner made an attempt to strangulate the petitioner by putting 'dupatta' (veil) around her neck. There are other allegations of maltreatment and it is on 8.10.1988, the petitioner was turned out of the matrimonial home in three clothes. After that she started living with her father at Mohali. On 6.8.1989 in the morning while she was alone and her parents were away, her husband Manwinder Singh (respondent No. 1) suddenly came and stated as to why she had not brought the demanded money. The petitioner replied that she was unable to meet the demand of dowry. Besides, respondent No. 1 also misbehaved with the petitioner. Manwinder Singh (respondent No. 1) pounced upon her, saying that he was out to get rid of her. He sat on her chest and started throttling her with the intention to kill her. She was however saved due to timely return and intervention of her parents. On seeing them coming, the accused ran away in his car.

(3.) AFTER completing the investigation, final report in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed in the Court in Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kharar. However, before charges were framed, the Public Prosecutor moved an application dated 6.7.1990 (Annexure P-1) in terms of Section 321 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to withdraw from the prosecution case. In the application, it has been stated that on an application of the women residents of Sector 34, Chandigarh (neighbours of the accused party) made to the High Court Authorities and under the orders of DGP, Punjab, an enquiry was conducted by Shri Sukhchain Singh Bajwa, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, (Special Crime Branch), to conduct further investigations in the matter. The said Deputy Superintendent of Police, after recording the statement of as many as seven ladies, who are living in the adjoining houses of the accused persons in Sector 34, Chandigarh besides one statement of Head Constable Popinder Singh represented that as a result of reinvestigation, the case registered against the accused, was found to be totally false. The Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the above evidence was not on the police file when the challan had been shown to him for filing in the Court and he submitted a report on 21.5.1990 to the District Magistrate, Ropar, through proper channel. The entire record was then submitted to the State Government, which agreed with the report of the Deputy Superintendent Police and the opinion submitted by the Assistant Public Prosecutor through the District Magistrate, Ropar. Thereafter, it has been stated by the Assistant Public Prosecutor that he had applied his mind being incharge of the case in the matter carefully, and was of the opinion that it would not be in the interest of justice and public policy to prolong the case and drag on the accused un-necessarily in view of the fresh evidence gathered by the C.I.D. Special Crime Branch. Thus it was prayed for withdrawing the case.