LAWS(P&H)-2003-2-129

BALWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On February 11, 2003
BALWINDER SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BALWINDER Singh, Balwinder Kaur, Kirpal Singh, Dalbir Kaur alias Biro, Fateh Singh and Paramjit Kaur alias Baljinder Kaur, petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 199 dated 30.10.2002 registered under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code with Police Station Jhubal, District Amritsar and the consequential proceedings taken therein.

(2.) FOR adjudication of the present petition a few facts need to be noticed at the outset. Rajwinder Kaur daughter of Balbir Singh, resident of Village Panjwarh, Tehsil Tarn Taran, District Amritsar addressed a communication to the S.H.O. Police Station, Jhubal. It was stated therein by her that she was married with Balwinder Singh son of Kirpal Singh, resident of Patel Nagar, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana on 19.1.1997 at Panjwarh. At the time of her marriage, she was given a car and other dowry articles as per financial position of her parents. After marriage, she resided with her husband at Patel Nagar, Yamuna Nagar. After one and half years of her marriage, quarrel started between her on one side and her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law on the other side. Balwinder Singh had sold the car and when she questioned him about his, she was beaten by her husband, mother-in-law, Biro, father-in-law, Kirpal Singh, sister-in-law, Balwinder Kaur and brother-in-law, Fateh Singh and his wife Paramjit Kaur. Thereafter she was turned out of the house. She then returned to the house of her parents. After about four months, Balwinder Singh and Kirpal Singh came to her village. Both of them persuaded the complainant to compel her mother and brother to give Rs. 2 lacs to her husband as her husband wanted to open a shop of spare parts. After getting the money from her parents, while leaving her parents house, her husband told her that he would take her after a few days of the opening of the shop. Accordingly, he came to the village and took her with him to the matrimonial home. She lived with her husband for a period of fix months peacefully. Thereafter, again she was harassed by her husband, her parents-in-law and sister-in-law. She was beaten and turned out of the house and thereafter she returned to the house of her parents. On 8.10.2002, her parents in the company of other respectables of the village left her in the house of her husband as they had taken desire that she should settle down in the house of her in-laws. On the occasion of marriage of her uncle's daughter, Rajneesh Kaur, she, her husband, Kirpal Singh, Biro, Balwinder Kaur had attended the marriage. Uncle of the complainant gave sufficient dowry to his daughter according to his status. The same was not tolerated by her husband and her in-laws. Thereafter, they pressed the complainant to bring Indica car and Rs. 1 lac for purchasing spare parts needed for sale at the shop of her husband. She was informed in clear terms that unless and until she brought these things, she would not be allowed to live in the matrimonial hone. She was again sent back to the house of her parents. Under these circumstances, she lodged the present report.

(3.) THE other case to which reference was made on behalf of the petitioners is Ravinder Sood and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and another, 2003(1) RCR(Crl.) 94, wherein the petitioners had sought quashing of the complaint filed under Sections 406 and 498-A I.P.C. at Police Station, Central, Sector 17, Chandigarh and the consequential proceedings taken therein. In that case the marriage of petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was solemnized at Chandigarh on 12.12.1996 and out of this wedlock a female child was born on 26.3.1998. On the date of pendency of the petition the child was living with her mother. Due to incompatibility in the temperament, the parties had been living separately since February 1998. Thereafter litigation ensued between the parties. The complainant-wife filed petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. She also filed a complaint against the petitioners which led to the registration of the FIR in question. While taking notice of the facts, it was stated that a decree of divorce had been granted to the parties by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act on 26.3.2002. The entire dispute between the parties had been settled and financial arrangements had been made part and parcel of decree of divorce. Counsel representing the parties before the Court agreed that there was no dispute pending between the parties and rather prayed that it would be in the interest of justice that criminal complaint, FIR and the consequential proceedings were quashed. Considering the submissions made, the Hon'ble Judge came to the conclusion that criminal litigation had been resorted to by the complainant for the purpose of ultimate settlement and divorce proceedings and continuance of the proceedings would tantamount to harassment to the parties concerned. Support was sought in this regard from the observations made in Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and another v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others, 1988(1) RCR(Crl.) 565, wherein it was laid down "it was for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the inherent of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely is be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage."