KAMAL KISHORE Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 34 dated 9.6.2003, under Sections 498, 342, 406, 34 IPC, Police Station Thermal, Bathinda.

(2.) THE facts in brief, are that petitioner No. 1 Kamal Kishore was married to respondent No. 2 Neetu on 13.10.1999 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. One daughter, namely, Channu was born out of the wedlock. Initially, both of them lived happily, but later on due to differences in temperament, their relations became strained. On account of strained relations, respondent No. 2 lodged the present FIR alleging maltreatment at the hands of the petitioners. With the intervention of friends and relatives, the couple decided to sever their relation peacefully by filing a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce by mutual consent. Accordingly, both of them filed a joint petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent in the Court of District Judge, Bathinda on 18.8.2003. Their statements were recorded before the District Judge in which both of them admitted that all the claims between them have been settled and prayed that their marriage be dissolved by mutual consent. At the second motion hearing on 19.2.2004, the District Judge, Bathinda accepted the petition and marriage between the parties was dissolved. Respondent No. 2 in her statement dated 19.2.2004, recorded before the District Judge, stated that both the parties have resolved to get their marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent and that she has received Rs. 1,33,413/- towards full and final settlement of her all claims. She further stated that she would not claim any past, present and future maintenance from Kamal Kishore. In her statement recorded on 19.8.2003 at the first motion hearing before the District Judge, respondent No. 2 stated that she would withdraw the application filed by her under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as the case under Section 498-A IPC registered at her instance. Respondent No. 2 had assured the petitioners that she would make herself available in the Court at the time of hearing. It is, thus, pleaded that continuance of proceedings actuated on the basis of present FIR would be an abuse of process of law and, therefore, the FIR be quashed as the parties have already settled their disputes.

(3.) AS far as presence of respondent No. 2 is concerned, she was earlier represented by Shri D.D. Bansal, Advocate. However, on 5.12.2005, he withdrew his power of attorney by making a statement and consequently, notice was ordered to be issued to respondent No. 2 to appear in the Court. Despite the notice having served on respondent No. 2, she did not come present nor any one appeared on her behalf at the time of hearing of this petition.