RAMESH CHAND Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) USHA Sharma, respondent No. 2 was Mavoued to Ramesh Chand on 3-2-1987 according to Hindu rites. Her father Jai Narain Sharma respondent No. 3 gave dowry at the time of marriage according to his capacity. The dowry articles were handed over to Ramesh Chand and his other relatives who are present petitioners. After marriage when father of Usha Sharma went to meet her, she complained that her husband and other petitioners did not treat her properly and subjected her to beating. They also did not allow her to write any letter. Her husband who was unemployed pressed her for bringing Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- from her parents. The petitioners who were not satisfied with the dowry treated Usha Sharma with cruelty. Father of Usha Sharma then made a complaint in writing to Superintendent of Police Karnal who forwarded the same to city Police Station Karnal on the basis of which case FIR No. 947 dated 24-11-1988 under Section 498A, 406/420 Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioners. The petitioners have now filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No 947 and consequent proceedings pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal.

(2.) IT was averred in the petition that on the intervention of the relatives and respectable persons a compromise was brought about between the parties which was reduced into writing on 11-9-1990 and was duly signed by respondents No. 2 and 3. It was produced before the Trial Court and a request was made for filing the case but the Trial Court passed order Annexure P 3 disallowing their prayer on the ground that the offence under Section 498A was not compoundable. It was further alleged that respondent No. 2 had also filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance which was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties. An ex parte decree of divorce has also been passed in favour of petitioner No. 1 and marriage of petitioner No. 1 with Usha Sharma stood dissolved. All the articles of dowry had been returned to respondents No. 2 and 3 and the whole dispute had been amicably settled. In these circumstances, there was no likelihood of conviction in the present case and if the proceedings continued that would to an abuse of the process of the court.

(3.) ANNEXURE P. 2 is certified copy of the compromise which was presented in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal. It was mentioned in this document that the compromise was effected voluntarily without any misrepresentation and Usha Sharma had received all the dowry articles from her husband and also some cash amount and there remained no dispute regarding any item of dowry. The parties, were however, not permitted to effect compromise as the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was not compoundable. The order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal to that effect is Annexure P-3 Annexure P-5 shows that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by Usha Sharma was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the compromise and Annexure P-6 makes it clear that matrimonial alliance between Usha Sharma and Ramesh Chand stood dissolved by a decree of divorce. The main dispute between the parties was regarding the adequacy of dowry and harassment of the wife. As the marriage stands dissolved all the disputes relating to dowry. have been settled. The continuance of the proceedings in the Trial Court will not serve any useful purpose and will simply amount to futile exercise and harassment of the petitioners. In similar situation FIR and consequent proceedings were quashed. In the case of Gurdeep Singh and others v. Smt. Ginni, 1991(3) RCR(Crl.) 349 (P&H) : 1991(1) CLR 617 and it was observed :-