YOG DHYAN BANGA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 2 wife Arina Puri and husband Yog Dhyan petitioner No. 1 were married to each other on September 30, 1984. Narrating her tale of woe and misery from the date of her marriage onwards, respondent No. 2 got recorded D.D.R. No. 27 in Police Station, Industrial Area, Ludhiana at 3.05 p.m. on 4th of February, 1987 against all the five petitioners i.e. parents-in-law, husband, his brother and sister for criminal misappropriation of her dowry articles, cruelty (both physical and mental) meted out by them all to her and extension to her by them of threats to her life under Sections 406, 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. FIR No. 22 was registered in police Station aforesaid on the basis of D.D.R. aforesaid. Narrating the same facts respondent No. 2 also filed against petitioner No. 1 a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Copy of the FIR is Annexure 'A' and the divorce petition Annexure 'B'.

(2.) ALL the five petitioners mentioned as accused in D.D.R. No. 27 dated February 4, 1987 have filed in this Court Criminal Miscellaneous No. 7203-M of 1988 for quashing of the FIR on the grounds that the allegations made therein are false; that in the divorce petition both the spouses in their respective statements dated May 6, 1988 have conceded that the dispute inter parties has since been compromised and that their being no likelihood of any conviction of any one from amongst the five petitioners in terms of the compromise aforesaid, the FIR should be quashed.

(3.) COMPROMISE adverted to on behalf of the petitioners has not yet the seal of the Court upon it. Even otherwise also it is no where stated in the statement of respondent No. 2 appeended as Annexure 'D' to quashing petition that she has condend the acts of cruelty attributed to the petitioners both in the FIR as also in the divorce petition. Statement Annexure 'C' made by the husband-petitioner No. 1 in the divorce petition is only one sided attempt to derive respondent No. 2 to the well by making her withdraw the police case against the petitioners in the hope of obtaining divorce from petitioner no. 1 which may or may not ultimately be granted after she had done so because thereby she would be regarded to have impliedly condoned the grounds of cruelty attributed therein to the petitioners on which the claim for divorce is based.