JASBIR SINGH WALIA Vs. AMRIT KAUR WALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE parties were married in October, 1984. They fell out and could not reconcile. As a result thereof they started living separately from February, 1986. The husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was decreed ex parte on 30.5.1988. The wife filed an application under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara and in those proceedings ad interim maintenance was granted but after passing the decree under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the learned trial Magistrate allowed an application filed by the husband to the effect that the wife was not entitled to any maintenance allowance. The said order of the learned trial Magistrate was reversed in revision by the Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, on 24.8.1990. Against the said order, the husband filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 782 of 1990 before this Court which was allowed vide judgment dated 22.2.1991, thereby setting aside the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, and restoring that of the trial Magistrate dated 2.5.1989.

(2.) IT is also worth mentioning here that an application filed by the wife for setting aside the ex parte decree passed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed in default. Her application for restoration of the above said application was also dismissed on 13.1.1989. She then moved an application for setting aside the said order of January 13, 1989 which was also dismissed on 1.11.1991. Thereupon the wife instituted the complaint (Annexure P-1) under Sections 406 and 498A Indian Penal Code on 13.4.1991 against the petitioner. VIde his order dated 7.8.1991 (Annexure P-2) the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara, summoned the petitioner to face trial under Sections 406 and 498A IPC. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has brought this petition under Section 48 Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing the complaint and the abovesaid two orders.

(3.) TRUE that the offence under Section 406 IPC is compoundable with the permission of the Court whereas the one under Section 498A is not compoundable even with the permission of the court, yet all the same, the prosecution of the accused/petitioner is bound to end in smoke as the complainant would not support the allegations contained in the complaint in view of the compromise. Thus, under these circumstances, the pendency of the proceedings in the case would simply amount to futile exercise and harassment to the petitioner/accused. In support of the above view, reference can be made to the following judgments :-