AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kuldip Singh, J.—This is a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing FIR No. 132 of 2009 dated 11.9.2009, registered at Police Station, Baddi under Sections 406, 498A, 34 IPC and case No. 228/2 of 2010 titled as State vs. Robinder Singh arising out of said FIR No. 132 of 2009 and pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nalagarh.
The facts in brief are that in pursuance of order of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nalagarh, an FIR No. 132 of 2009 has been registered on 11.9.2009 u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. at Police Station, Baddi for offences punishable under Sections 406, 498A, 34 IPC against petitioners. The petitioner No. 1 is the husband, petitioner No. 2 is the father-in-law and petitioner No. 3 is the mother-in-law of respondent No. 3, who filed the complaint before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nalagarh.
It has been stated that marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 was solemnized on 22.1.2007 at Gurudwara Sahib, Landran, District Mohali. It has been alleged that the parents of respondent No. 3 spent more than Rs. 12 lacs on the marriage of respondent No. 3 and more than Rs. 2 lacs on the ring ceremony.
The allegations are that after the marriage petitioners started misbehaving with respondent No. 3 for not bringing sufficient dowry. The respondent No. 3 after the marriage was shocked to know that the petitioners did not own a house; they lived in a rented accommodation. The petitioner No. 1 forcibly got opened joint account with respondent No. 3 at Mohali and got transferred salary of respondent No. 3 in the joint account. The petitioner No. 1 handled the joint account. The petitioner No. 1 demanded money from the parents of respondent No. 3 for purchasing a house at Mohali. The petitioner No. 1 forcibly took amount from respondent No. 3 through cheques. The petitioners wanted a house loan from H.D.F.C. Bank, a joint loan account was got opened in the name of petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 and both of them jointly owned a house No. 3429, Sector 71 in Mohali.
The respondent No. 3 and her parents tried their level best to fulfil the demands of petitioners. The respondent No. 3 was asked to bring more money from her sister and parents in order to open a specialty clinic at Mohali. The respondent No. 3 was asked to arrange money from her sister living in America. The petitioner No. 1 also gave beatings to respondent No. 3. The petitioners had thrown out the respondent No. 3 from matrimonial house. The efforts made to settle the matter failed. The petitioners have harassed, maltreated the respondent No. 3 for bringing more dowry and demands raised for car, house, money etc.
The petitioner No. 1 in April, 2009 filed a petition in the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, SAS Nagar, u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short Act) for dissolution of marriage of petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The petition has been transferred from Mohali to the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Nalagarh. It has been alleged that FIR No. 132 of 2009 has been filed as a counter blast to petition filed by petitioner No. 1 u/s 13 of the Act.
The petitioners filed Cr.MMO No. 168 of 2010 before the High Court of H.P. for quashing of FIR No. 132 of 2009 dated 11.9.2009. On 7.9.2010, the High Court gave directions to the learned Magistrate to first determine whether any cause of action arose within the jurisdiction in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The challan has been submitted in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nalagarh, who on 26.8.2011 has decided that cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Baddi.
After the filing of Cr.MMO No. 168 of 2010 and transfer of divorce petition to the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Nalagarh, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 have amicably settled the dispute and for that purpose they have entered into a compromise and have also filed a petition u/s 13B of the Act for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. In the compromise deed dated 18.7.2011 and petition u/s 13B of the Act, it has been agreed between the parties that the custody of minor child, born from the wedlock of petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3, shall remain with respondent No. 3. It has also been agreed that respondent No. 3 is a doctor and earning sufficient means to maintain herself and so she is not demanding any kind of maintenance in future from petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 shall withdraw the cases and respondent No. 3 shall withdraw the case u/s 125 Cr.P.C. pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nalagarh. The respondent No. 3 agreed to withdraw the FIR No. 132 of 2009 dated 11.9.2009, registered at Police Station, Baddi.
In the petition u/s 13B of the Act, it has been agreed that a sum of Rs. 18 lacs shall be paid to respondent No. 3 and minor child Taranjeet alias Aman on account of past, present and future maintenance and in respect of dowry articles, ornaments to respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 had made a statement in the petition u/s 13B of the Act that an amount of Rs. 8 lacs has already been paid by petitioner No. 1 to respondent No. 3. The case is now fixed on 28.1.2012. On these facts, prayer has been made for quashing of the FIR No. 132 of 2009 dated 11.9.2009, registered at Police Station, Baddi under Sections 406, 498A, 34 IPC and case No. 228/2 of 2010 titled as State vs. Robinder Singh.
On 24.11.2011, respondent No. 3 had put in appearance through Mr. Bhupinder Singh Sudan, Advocate. On that date, the learned counsel for petitioner No. 1 stated that petitioner No. 1 had handed over three drafts amounting to Rs. 10 lacs to him for further handing over to respondent No. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 had stated that respondent No. 3 would appear in the Court on the next date of hearing and prayed adjournment. On 29.11.2011, respondent No. 3 appeared in person alongwith her counsel Mr. Bhupinder Singh Sudan, Advocate. The respondent No. 3 filed an affidavit dated 29.11.2011 stating therein that she had received drafts amounting to Rs. 5 lacs, Rs. 4 lacs, Rs. 1 lac, total amounting to Rs. 10 lacs on behalf of her minor son Taranjeet Singh. She has stated that she has no objection in case FIR No. 132 dated 11.9.2009 under Sections, 406, 498-A, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station, Baddi is quashed. The case was taken on 6.12.2011 and on that date Mr. Bhupinder Singh Sudan, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has again stated that respondent No. 3 has no objection in case FIR No. 132 dated 11.9.2009 under Sections, 406, 498-A, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station, Baddi is quashed.
In affidavit dated 29.11.2011 the respondent No. 3 has stated that she has no objection, if FIR No. 132 dated 11.9.2009 under Sections, 406, 498-A, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station, Baddi is quashed. She has received three drafts total amounting to Rs. 10 lacs on behalf of her minor son Taranjeet Singh who will live with her as per compromise dated 18.7.2011.
Cr. MMO No.83 of 2003 titled Sushma Devi and others vs. State of H.P. was filed in this Court for quashing of proceedings pursuant to FIR No. 487 dated 9.9.1999, registered at Police Station Una under Sections 323, 109, 498-A and 506 IPC, in Case No. 178-1/1999, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (II), Una. On behalf of the State, it was claimed that the trial Court has no power to grant permission to compound the offences and during investigation, the allegations therein were found correct. The learned Single Judge of this court has held as follows:-
It is true that an offence u/s 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable and within the framework of the Code, Court has no power and authority to grant permission to compound an offence which is not compoundable. However, quashing of the proceedings, as prayed for in the present petition, is not granting permission to compound an offence which is not compoundable. The powers to quash proceedings u/s 482 of the Code stands entirely on a different footing and the provisions of Section 320 of the code, in no way, affect such powers.
Section 482 of the Code preserves the inherent powers of the High Court which gives the widest jurisdiction to such Court to undo such injustice which cannot be undone under any other provision of the Code. However, these powers can be exercised within the framework of the Section i.e. to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice and exercise of such power with a view to achieve the aforesaid objectives is independent of the powers of the Courts u/s 320 of the Code.
The learned Single Judge noticed B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, and has held that powers of the High Court u/s 482 of the Code are not, in any manner controlled by Section 320 of the Code. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition and proceedings in Criminal Case No. 178-1/1999, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 109 IPC pursuant to FIR No. 487 dated 9.9.1999 registered at Police Station, Una and pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class(II), Una were quashed.
In Rajinder Singh and others v. State of H.P. and another 2004 (2) SLC 5 after the settlement of dispute between the parties, the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition and proceedings in Case No. 195-1/3 under Sections 498-A, 34, 506 and 323 IPC pending in the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb were quashed.
In the present case, after the filing of the FIR No. 132 of 2009 dated 11.9.2009, registered at Police Station, Baddi under Sections 406, 498A, 34 IPC and divorce petition by petitioner No. 1 against respondent No. 1at Mohali, the matter has been settled. The parties have filed petition u/s 13B of the Act for dissolving their marriage by way of mutual consent. The respondent No. 3 on 29.11.2011 had put in appearance in this court along with her counsel Mr. Bhupinder Singh Sudan, Advocate. On that date she had stated that she had received three drafts in all amounting to Rs. 10 lacs on behalf of her minor son Taranjeet Singh. It has been stated by the petitioners in the petition that they have already paid Rs. 8 lacs to the respondent No. 3. This has not been denied by respondent No. 3. In all the respondent No. 3 has received Rs. 18 lacs. She has filed an affidavit in this Court that she has no objection in case FIR No. 132 dated 11.9.2009 under Sections, 406, 498-A, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station, Baddi is quashed. On 29.11.2011 when she appeared in the Court she again reiterated that she has no objection in case FIR No. 132 dated 11.9.2009 under Sections, 406, 498-A, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station, Baddi is quashed.
In view of stand now taken by respondent No. 3 the continuation of case against petitioners very likely will be an exercise in futility. The possibility cannot be ruled out that respondent No. 3 may not support the prosecution case. The prosecution witnesses of respondent No. 3 may also not support the prosecution. The requirement of justice delivery system is that the witnesses speak and are encouraged to speak the truth. The Courts have to ensure that sanctity of oath is preserved to ensure to do substantial justice. As observed in Cr.MMO No. 83 of 2003, therefore, to keep the system of administration of justice unpolluted, a situation where the witness, for certain compelling reason, is likely to make false statement on oath, has to be dealt with in a manner most suited to meet the ends of justice. This situation exists in the present case. In the interest of justice, it is a fit case where FIR No. 132 of 2009 dated 11.9.2009, registered at Police Station, Baddi under Sections 406, 498A, 34 IPC and case No. 228/2 of 2010 titled as State vs. Robinder Singh, arising out of said FIR No. 132 of 2009 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nalagarh are liable to be quashed.
In view above discussion, petition is allowed, FIR No. 132 of 2009 dated 11.9.2009, registered at Police Station, Baddi under Sections 406, 498A, 34 IPC and case No. 228/2 of 2010 titled as State vs. Robinder Singh, arising out of said FIR No. 132 of 2009 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nalagarh are quashed. In view of disposal of main petition Cr.M.P. No 697 of 2011 is also disposed of.