Kulwinder Singh vs Ramnik Goel

S.D. Bajaj, J.

Complaint Annexure P/5 under sections 406, 498 A, 323 and 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was filed by respondentwife against her husband, his two brothers, her motherinLaw and the sister of her husband for their refusal to return her Istridhan 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 arrays as accused in the complaint Annexure P/5 have filed Criminal Misc. No. 7271M 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 under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code the respondent had himself stated that she had taken away her Istridhan to her House No. 903 Sector 18A, 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 Shri H.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/1 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 It is also in evidence that vide Annexure P/2 respondent wife got the complaint Annexure dismissed as withdrawn on 6th November,1986.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not want to pursue with this complaint, as she has started putting up with her husband and the same be dismissed as withdrawn."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 parties to the case have compromised the matter with the intervention and pursuations of certain respectables. The respondent 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 IstriDhan and henceforth will keep the same with her exclusively. The applicant Ramnik Goyal will be responsible for keeping the Istridhan 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 misunderstanding that the allegations of cruelty and demands of dowry had been made. The applicant Ramnik Goyal will be was no grudge against the brothers, mother and sisters of the respondent. It is with a view to bring peace and harmony for 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.

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 allegation after dismissal of her earlier complaint Annexure P/1 on the same cause of action filed on 1st September, 1986 vide order dated 6th November, 1986 is obviously barred on the principle of ''resjudicata pro veritable accipiter''. Faced with similar situation in Pritam Singh and another v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1956 Supreme Court 415 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 is must be added that the verdict is binding and conclusive in all subsequent proceedings between the parties to the adjudication. The maxim judicata provaritate accipiter is no less applicable to criminal then 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 the event 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/1. In the absence of her doing so the second complaint is obviously barred by law.

Claim for maintenance adverted to in Cr. M. No. 6994M of 1988 as also the claim for ad interim maintenance assailed in Cr.R. No. 987 of 1988 are both continuing causes of action which get revised 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 adinterim maintenance applications over again. Requests for quashing them both on the analogy of complaint Annexure P.5 are, therefore, whole without merit and are consequently declined.

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