Kulvinder Kumar and Others vs Smt. Ramnik Goel

S.D. Bajaj, J.—Complaint Annexure P/5 u/s 406, 498A, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was filed by respondent wife against her husband, his two brothers, her mother-in-law and the sister of her husband for their refusal to return her stridhan and other dowry articles, perpetuation of cruelty after marriage to pressurise her to bring more dowry, extention to her by them of the threats of her life and beating her at intervals of accomplish their design.

All the five persons aforesaid arrayed as accused in the complaint Annexure P/5 have filed Criminal Misc. No. 7271-M of 1988 for quashing the complaint Annexure P/5 on the grounds that identically similar complaint Annexure P/1 was got filed by the wife on 1st September 1986, therefore, filing of same complaint over again is obviously an abuse of the process of the Court. It was also asserted that in the maintenance application filed u/s 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code the respondent had himself stated that she had taken away her stridhan to her House No. 903, Sector 18-A, Shivaji Nagar, Ludhiana, and was, therefore, unnecessary dragging the petitioner to Court for nothing. On these allegations it was asserted that the complaint was obviously an abuse of the process of the Court.

I have heard Sari U.S. Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner, Shri Vijay Jhanji, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Om Parkash Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent and have carefully gone through the relevant material brought on record by the two parties.

It is not disputed that the complaint Annexure P/l filed by respondent wife on 1st September, 1986 and complaint Annexure P/5 filed by her on 23rd July, 1987 are identically the same. It is also in evidence that vide Annexure P/2 respondent wife got the complaint Annexure P/l dismissed as withdrawn on 6th November, 1986. The statement attributed to her in Annexure P/2 reads, "She has stated that she does not want to pursue with this complaint, as she has started patting up with her husband and the same be dismissed as withdrawn." In her application Annexure P/3 filed on 6th November, 1986 for withdrawal of maintenance application filed by her against her husband Kulwinder Kumar alone respondent wife stated ;

"That the parties to the case have compromised the matter with the intervention and pursuations of certain respectables. The respondents Kulwinder Kumar has taken separate residence from his mother brothers and sisters and the applicants have started living with him. The application for maintenance had been filed as a result of misunderstanding of the applicant Ramnik Goyal and the same has been settled. The applicant No. 1 has taken all her Istri Dhan and henceforth will keep the same with her exclusively. The applicant Ramnik Goyal will be responsible for keeping the Istri Dhan with her. It will not be treated to be in possession of the respondent nor the respondent will take the same from the applicant. It was as a result of mis-understanding that the allegations of cruelty and demands of dowry had been made. The applicant Ramnik Goyal has not grudge against the brothers, mother and sisters of the respondent. It is with a view to bring peace and harmony for parties to this case, that the brothers, mother and sisters of the respondent have separated the respondent and applicants from themselves. They shall have no concern as regards domestic affairs of parties of the case.

That as a result of compromise, the applicant No. 1 has withdrawn her petition for divorce from the Court of Shri R.L. Anand, Additional District Judge, Ludhiana today. She will withdraw the criminal case pending in the Court of Shri P.S. Virk, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana.

The since both the parties have started living together, the applicant is no more interested in prosecuting the present application which may be dismissed as withdrawn."

Second and subsequent complaint Annexure P/5 filed by the wife over again on the same allegations after dismissal other earlier complaint Annexure P/l on the same cause of action filed on 1st September, 1986 vide order dated 6th November, (986 is obviously barred on the principle of ''res judicata proveritate accipitur''. Faced with similar situation in Pritam Singh and Another Vs. The State of Punjab, their lordships of the Supreme Court observed :

"The effect of a verdict of acquittal pronounced by a competent Court on a lawful charge and after a lawful trial is not completely stated by saying that the person acquitted cannot be tried again for the same offence. To that it must be added that the verdict is binding and conclusive in all subsequent proceedings between the parties to the adjudication. The maxim ''res judicata pro varitate accipitur'' is no less applicable to criminal than to civil proceedings."

It has been urged on behalf of the respondent .wife that she was duped into a settlement on 6th November, 1986 and was again discarded by her husband shortly thereafter nearly after a month and had, therefore, per force to file the complaint afresh once over again. In that even the respondent ought to have approached the Court for avoiding the compromise on the grounds of misrepresentation and fraud and thereafter pursued the complaint Annexure P/l. In the absence of her doing so the second complaint is obviously barred by law.

Claim for maintenance adverted to in Cr. M No. 6994-M of 1988 as also the claim for ad-interim maintenance assailed in Cr. RN 1987 of 1988 are both continuing causes of action which get revived and can be the basis of fresh complaint after the falling through of the compromise adverted to in the application Annexure P/3 on 6th November, 1986. Respondent wife can, therefore, legitimately file the maintenance and ad-interim ''maintenance applications over again. Requests, for quashing them both on the anology of complaint .Annexure P. 5 are, therefore, wholly without merit and are consequently declined.

In result Cr.M. No, 7271-M of 1988 succeeds and is allowed. Complaint Annexure P/5 is quashed.