SATNAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Satnam Singh along with his two sons - Manjit Singh, Jit Singh and his wife Smt. Sheela Devi, have come up in this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing of F.I.R. No. 88 dated 6th July, 1992, registered at Police Station Division No. 1, Ludhiana, for offences under sections. 406/498-A of the Indian Penal Code, Annexure P.1.

(2.) The impugned F.I.R. was got registered by Attar Singh, father of Satinder Kaur. According to the averments made in the F.I.R., Satinder Kaur was married to Manjit Singh son of Satnam Singh, on 22 January, 1989. Some of the demands made at the time of the marriage were met under duress. Soon after the marriage, husband of Satinder Kaur started taunting her about in sufficiency of dowry, and his parents and brother also joined in making those remarks. Sheela Devi had been using filthy language towards Satinder Kaur and even hurled abuses to her and her parents. Satinder Kaur was also subjected to physical torture and in the second week of March, 1989, Sheela Rani and Satnam Singh made demand for Rs. 50,000/- and asked Satinder Kaur to get that money from her parents. When she showed her helplessness both of them hurled abuses and Manjit Singh and it. Pal Singh gave her slaps. Satnam Singh and others also started administering drugs to Satinder Kaur and whenever she refused of take the medicines she was maltreated to She was ultimately turned out of the house in October, 1989. The articles of dowry given to Satinder Kaur at the time of marriage were retained by Satnam Singh and Smt. Sheela Rani and were not returned inspire of demands.

(3.) On the other hand, there had been other litigation between the parties. Manjit Singh had filed against Satinder Kaur a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the court at Ropar. Ultimately, however, better sense-appears to have prevailed upon Satinder Kaur and Manjit Singh and they executed an agreement Annexure P.3 wherein they agreed to withdraw all the litigations which they had instituted against each other. Satinder Kaur was also paid lump sum in lieu of alimony and it was further agreed that the marriage shall be got dissolved by filing a petition for divorce. At the time of hearing of application for pre-arrest bail, Shri Rajwant Singh, Advocate, who represented the complainant, made a statement that a compromise had been effected between the parties and the- complainant was no longer interested in pursuing the case.