TARUN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS Tarun Kumar, Jagan Nath Khurana, Prem Lata Khurana, Ms. Sonia Khurana, Pankaj Kumar Khurana, Smt. Geeta Kohli and Kamal Kohli are involved in F.I.R. No. 38/95 dated 26.4.1995 under Sections 406/498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The report was lodged by respondent No. 2 Smt. Amita Khurana, daughter of Hari Kishan who is the wife of petitioner No. 1 Tarun Kumar son of Jagan Nath Khurana. By means of the present petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioners who include the husband Tarun Kumar, father-in-law Jagan Nath Khurana, mother-in-law Prem Lata Khurana, Sonia Khurana daughter of Jagan Nath Khurana, Pankaj Kumar Khurana son of Jagan Nath Khurana, Smt. Geeta Kohli, wife of Kamal Kohli, sister-in-law and Kamal Kohli. Respondent No. 2 Amita Khurana, wife of the petitioner-husband Tarun Kumar lodged the complaint against her husband and his family members for the offences mentioned above. The sole contention now raised by the petitioners is that in view of the compromise arrived at between the complainant- respondent No. 2 Smt. Amita Khurana and the petitioners particularly the husband-petitioner Tarun Kumar and also since the respondent No. 2 has already come to reside with her husband and is living happily with him the continuance of the proceedings in the complaint case are likely to prejudice the amicable relations between the husband and the wife.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 Smt. Amita Khurana appeared before this Court and her statement was recorded on 5.9.1995. In her statement Smt. Amita Khurana has stated about compromising the dispute and the settlement of differences that had cropped up between her and the petitioners including her husband. She has stated that she is residing happily with her husband and she did not wish to prosecute the said criminal case particularly in view of the compromise arrived at between her and the petitioners. She also stated that she made the statement without any coercion or duress and of her own free will. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the authority of this Court reported in the case of Suresh Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others, 1995(2) C.L.R. 241. In that case the petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of F.I.R. under Sections 498-A and 406 of Indian Penal Code was sought to be quashed. The parties had compromised all their matters. It was held that no doubt the offences alleged against the petitioners were cognizable and non-compoundable but in view of the judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana, 1992(2) Recent C.R. 191 wherein it was held that in such offences like Sections 498-A and 406 of Indian Penal Code, the F.I.R. should be quashed keeping in view the mutual settlement between the spouses and to enable them to live happily. The judgment of this Court in the case of Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana (supra) is regarding the quashing of F.I.R. under Sections 406/498-A of Indian Penal Code by the wife and in that case the marriage was dissolved by mutual settlement and they had married with new spouses. Another authority relied on by the learned counsel for maintainability of petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of F.I.R. relating to cognizable offence is Jasbir Singh Walia v. Mrs. Amrit Kaur Walia, 1993(1) Recent C.R. 177. This Court held that in a case where the wife filed a complaint against the husband under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, subsequently arrived at a compromise, then notwithstanding the fact that the offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code was non-compoundable even with the permission of the Court, F.I.R. could be quashed because the complainant was not to support her own allegations in the complaint. In view of the settled law and also in view of the facts of this case in which the parties have compromised the matter and the complainant-respondent No. 2 wife Smt. Amita Khurana is not herself willing to support her complaint case, it is a fit case where the F.I.R. should be quashed notwithstanding the fact that the offences involved in the F.I.R. are non-compoundable even without the permission of the Court, but keeping in view the future of the complaint-wife Smt. Amita who is now happily and peacefully living with her husband and wants to continue to reside with him to keep the matrimonial tie alive. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the F.I.R. No. 38/95 dated 26.4.1995 and the consequential proceedings are quashed.