Jaswant Singh vs State of Punjab

V.S. Aggarwal, J. (Oral)

This is a petition filed by Jaswant Singh and others under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the First Information Report dated 23.3.1996. It pertains to offences punishable under Sections 494 and 498A IPC, registered at Police Station B Division, Amritsar.

The relevant facts are that on 7.4.1985 respondent No. 2 was married to Jaswant Singh petitioner No. 1. They started living together. The petitioners contend that respondent No. 2 had deserted petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of mental cruelty. The petition was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar on 6.4.1990. In the meantime, respondent No. 2 had filed a criminal complaint under Sections 406 and 498A IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The learned Judicial Magistrate had summoned the petitioners for the offence punishable under section 406 IPC. The petitioners filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the said complaint. The same was allowed qua petitioners 2 and 3 by this Court on 28.1.1991. Later on respondent No. 2 had withdrawn the complaint. Against the judgment and the decree passed for divorce, respondent No. 2 had preferred an appeal in this Court. The appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge was set aside.

Respondent No. 2 has filed, a fresh report (under challenge) with respect to the offences punishable under Sections 494 and 498A IPC. The petitioners contend that the same is an abuse of the process of the court and should be quashed. Reliance is placed on the fact that the earlier complaint had already been quashed and in any case, cognizance could not be taken by the Court with respect to the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC which is noncognizable except in accordance with the procedure prescribed.

In the reply filed the State contested the petition. There is no dispute that earlier complaint filed by respondent No. 2 had been quashed qua petitioners 2 and 3. But it is contended that as per the allegations made, offence under Section 498A IPC is drawn. The challan has been presented in Court. A date has been fixed for consideration of the charge. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the time of arguments read the First Information Report presently recorded to urge that no case is drawn against the petitioners. He highlighted the fact that earlier complaint had been filed. Petitioners had approached this Court and the petition had been allowed by this Court as against Jagtar Singh and Kulwant Kaur. According to him a fresh complaint was not maintainable. On the contrary learned counsel for respondent No. 2 highlighted the fact that after the earlier complaint had partly been quashed in favour of some of the petitioners, petitioner No. 1 had lived with respondent No. 2. Thereafter for subsequent events, the First Information Report could be recorded.

The sequence of events clearly shows that once the earlier complaint had been dismissed with respect to the same facts, a new complaint will not be maintainable. Only with respect to subsequent events, if any offence is drawn, the same can be looked into.

Pertaining to the subsequent facts, there are certain allegations made which are incorporated in the First Information Report. In this regard at this stage it will not be appropriate for this Court to go into the details because the challan has since been presented in Court and the case is listed before the learned Judicial Magistrate for consideration of the charge. The learned Judicial Magistrate would, therefore, go into the legal and factual pleas available to the petitioners and consider if charge has to be framed or not. This Court, therefore, will restrain itself from expressing any opinion in this regard. The said question came up for consideration in the case State of Bihar and another v. Shri P.P. Sharma and another, AIR 1991 SC 1260. It was held that once the report has been submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. to the Court after completion of investigation, the proceedings should not be quashed. In paragraph 33 the Supreme Court held :

"The above order was brought to the notice of the Patna High Court but the High Court refused to be persuaded to adopt the same course. We are of the considered view that at a stage when the police report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. has been forwarded to the Magistrate after completion of the investigation and the material collected by the Investigating Officer is under the gaze of judicial scrutiny, the High Court would do well to discipline itself not to undertake quashing proceedings at that stage in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. We could have set aside the High Court judgment on this ground alone but elaborate argument having been addressed by the learned counsel for the parties, we thought it proper to deal with all the aspects of the case."

Keeping in view the said decision, it is entirely for the Judicial Magistrate to consider all the pleas available to the petitioner at the time when the arguments are addressed on the question of framing of the charge.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners urge that petitioners 3 and 4 are ladies and their personal presence may be exempted. Keeping in view the totality of facts, it is directed that on an appropriate application being filed, the learned Judicial Magistrate will exempt the personal presence of petitioners 3 and 4 (Kulwant Kaur and Harjinder Kaur) on such terms as may be deemed appropriate.

Subject to the abovesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of.

RESULT Petition disposed of.