AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.K. Jain, J.
The parties were married in October, 1984. They fell out and could not reconcile. As a result thereof they started living separately from February, 1986. The husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was decreed ex parte on 30.5.1988. The wife filed an application under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara and in those proceedings ad interim maintenance was granted but after passing the decree under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the learned trial Magistrate allowed an application filed by the husband to the effect that the wife was not entitled to any maintenance allowance. The said order of the learned trial Magistrate was reversed in revision by the Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, on 24.8.1990. Against the said order, the husband filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 782 of 1990 before this Court which was allowed vide judgment dated 22.2.1991, thereby setting aside the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, and restoring that of the trial Magistrate dated 2.5.1989.
It is also worth mentioning here that an application filed by the wife for setting aside the ex parte decree passed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed in default. Her application for restoration of the above said application was also dismissed on 13.1.1989. She then moved an application for setting aside the said order of January 13, 1989 which was also dismissed on 1.11.1991. Thereupon the wife instituted the complaint (Annexure P1) under Sections 406 and 498A Indian Penal Code on 13.4.1991 against the petitioner. VIde his order dated 7.8.1991 (Annexure P2) the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara, summoned the petitioner to face trial under Sections 406 and 498A IPC. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has brought this petition under Section 48 Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing the complaint and the abovesaid two orders.
When the case came up for hearing, the petitioner made the following statement, which was recorded.
"I have compromised the dispute with the respondent. A photocopy of the agreement has been placed on record of this case today. The complaint and the summoning order Annexure P1 and P2 respectively may kindly be quashed. I shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise dated February 14, 1992."
Thereafter, Amrit Kaur respondent has made the following statement at the Bar which was also recorded :
"Vide written agreement of February 14, 1992, a photocopy thereof has been placed on record today, I have compromised the dispute with the petitioner. I will remain bound of the abovesaid agreement. Complaint Ex.P1 and summoning order Ex. P2 may kindly be quashed."
True that the offence under Section 406 IPC is compoundable with the permission of the Court whereas the one under Section 498A is not compoundable even with the permission of the court, yet all the same, the prosecution of the accused/petitioner is bound to end in smoke as the complainant would not support the allegations contained in the complaint in view of the compromise. Thus, under these circumstances, the pendency of the proceedings in the case would simply amount to futile exercise and harassment to the petitioner/accused. In support of the above view, reference can be made to the following judgments :
Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 SC 2111 : 1989 Crl. LJ 286;
State of Rajasthan v Gopal Lal and others, 1992(1) RCR 589 ; and
Ramesh Chand and others v. The State of Haryana and others, 1992(1) RCR 626 .
In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed and the complaint (Annexure P1), summoning order (Annexure P2) and the connected proceedings pending in the Court below are quashed.