HARPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the proceedings in criminal case No. 67/91 pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Petitioner No. 1 was married to non-petitioner No. 2 at Jaipur on 10. 10. 1986. After about 2 1/2 years of the marriage, the relations strained and on 30. 12. 89 non-petitioner No. 2 lodged a report against the petitioner Harpal Singh in Mahila Thana, Jaipur, which was registered as F. l. R. No. 89/89 for offences under Ss. 498a and 406 I. P. C. and a case was registered.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the investigation non-petitioner No. 2 filed an application before the Circle Officer of Mahila Thana on 14. 2. 1990 that she had filed the complaint in moment of emotions and sentiments and does not want to take further action on her report. She wrote in the application that she has received back all the belongings from her husband and they have also filed petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. Alongwith the application, she filed copy of the receipt of the goods she had received and copy of the divorce petition. Police, after satisfying itself, submitted a final report No. 5/90 on 19. 12. 1990. On 17. 12. 1990, the learned trial court issued notice on this report to the complainants which was served on 9. 2. 1991 for 15. 2. 1991. She appeared in the court, but neither filed the protest petition nor gave any statement before the learned Magistrate and returned home as she never wanted to prosecute the petitioner. She did not appear on adjourned dated i. e. 14. 10. 1991 (sic. 14. 3. 1991) and 15. 3. 1991. However, marking presence of the Public Prosecutor, the learned Magistrate passed orders for taking cognizance against which the petitioners filed revision petition which has been dismissed by Addl. Sessions Judge N. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur. In this petition the learned counsel raised two fold objections. His first grievance is that no cognizance could have been taken since the offence alleged in the complaint was in respect of doing cruelty alleged to have been committed on 21. 6. 87 and the order of cognizance has been passed on 16. 3. 1991 which is beyond the period of three years and is thus barred by limitation. Secondly, in view of the compromise entered into between the parties and then condoning the cruelty of matrimonial offence, no prosecution is required to continue, for offence under S. 498 A. I. P. C. This is evident from the conduct of Smt. Narender Kaur that she neither appeared before the trial court nor before the revisional court nor before this court even after notice clearly indicates that she does not want to persue the remedy in view of the mutual settlement of all disputes between the parties.