SUMITRA DEVI Vs. RAJINDER SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against order dated 04.01.2011 whereby learned Sessions Judge, Jammu dismissed respondents' complaint under sections 494/109, 405, 406, 379 & 382 RPC in File No. 08/compliant in terms of section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code).

(2.) HEARD . I have perused the record. I may state, briefly, the facts leading to this revision petition:

(3.) ON the strength of the averments in the revision petition, Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was compelled to enter into a compromise in the earlier complaint under pressure and allurement by the promise of providing maintenance to her made by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1, who is a Government teacher, had been providing maintenance to the petitioner in terms of the compromise but after his retirement from Government service he refused to provide maintenance to her from his pension. She was thus compelled to file the complaint afresh as respondent No. 1 had breached the terms of the compromise. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. Sethi argued that under compelling circumstances and having been allured by the promise of providing maintenance to her by respondent No. 1, petitioner had conditionally withdrawn her earlier complaint and as the respondent committed breach of the agreement, petitioner is not precluded from filing the complaint afresh. Referring to the explanation to section 403 of the Code, Mr. Sethi argued that earlier it was simple dismissal of the complaint having been conditionally withdrawn by the petitioner so the scope of filing fresh complaint is protected under the Explanation as such a dismissal was not acquittal of the accused -respondent. Contextually, Mr. Sethi read out the contents of the application for withdrawal of complaint filed by the petitioner in the earlier complaint and sought to make out a point that petitioner had sought only withdrawal of the complaint with permission to file fresh complaint in case of breach of agreement by the other party and dismissal of the complaint by the learned trial Court is to be construed in that sense and not as the acquittal of respondent No. 1 as contemplated under section 403 of the Code.