Surinder Kaur vs Rajinder Singh

Bakhshish Kaur, J.

This case has got chequered history.

The marriage of the parties was solemnized on November 19, 1978. A son and a daughter were born from the wedlock. A chain of litigations ensued between the two in the shape of petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, proceedings under Section 107/150, Code of Criminal Procedure; and a complaint under Sections 452/353/323/506, Indian Penal Code.

Surinder Kaur, petitioner, has therefore filed this petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for quashing the complaint dated July 9, 1996 (Annexure P3) and summoning order dated November 22, 1996 (Annexure P5) and the order dated September 19, 1997 (Annexure P7).

The salient features giving rise to the present petition as set out therein are as follows :

Surinder Kaur is employed as a Music Teacher in a Government School, at Patiala. Rajinder Singh, respondent, is a Sanitay Inspector in Municipal Committee, Patiala. The respondent is addicted to liquor and he had been terrorizing the petitioner by demanding cash and on certain occasions he gave her beating mercilessly. To her utter surprize Surinder Kaur received a notice under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the respondent on March 8, 1987, seeking divorce by levelling wild and unfounded allegations. It was dismissed on July 28, 1988. The parties started living together, but there was no change in the behaviour of the respondent. Rather, he used to indulge in extramarital affairs.

Another petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the respondent on September 22, 1992, levelling allegations against the petitioner. The same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, on April 25, 1994, by observing in paragraph 9 of the judgment as under :

"It is apparent that the petitioner had been playing hide and seek with the court and his conduct shows that his only motive is to drag the proceedings which may result in harassment to the other party."

The dismissal of the second petition for divorce did not deter the respondent and he ventured to file a fresh petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on March 19, 1995 by levelling almost the same allegations. The petitioner, who was deprived of the maintenance was forced to file an application under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, for grant of maintenance to the children, which was allowed. Criminal Revision No. 513 of 1993 was filed in this Court, in which Rs. 700/ for both the children were allowed and later on vide Criminal Misc. No. 717M of 1997 sum of Rs. 1000/ per month for both the children has been awarded. During the pendency of the proceedings under Sections 107/150, Code of Criminal Procedure, the respondent exercising his position got published defamatory matter in the Daily Ranjit, Patiala, with regard to character assassination of the petitioner with oblique motive. Thus, the petitioner filed a complaint under Sections 500/120B, Indian Penal Code, against the respondent and six other persons. (A copy of which is Annexure P1). On March 21, 1995, the respondent No. 7 Harinder Pal Singh had sworn an affidavit expressing his regret despite stating that it was published in order to use it against the petitioner. Copy of the affidavit is Annexure P2.

On the basis of the complaint filed by the respondent through the Executive Officer vide Endt. No. 1420 dated 7.5.1996, the police swung into action against the petitioner and proceeded under Sections 107/150, Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondent failed to produce evidence in those proceedings and the same were dropped by the Executive Magistrate vide his order dated May 22, 1997 (copy of which is Annexure P4). The respondent was not satisfied, therefore, he filed the impugned complaint under Sections 452/353/323/506, Indian Penal Code, in which the petitioner has been summoned to face the trial. Hence, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned complaint and the orders, as above.

In response to the notice, the respondent filed reply and has taken up the preliminary objection that only the revision petition is competent and not the petition for quashing the complaint. The petition does not spell out the abuse of the process of the court or any other condition to invoke the powers; rather it is matter of evidence, which can be looked into during trial. He has denied the averments and the allegations contained in the petition. However, the marriage is admitted. The filing of the petition for divorce is also admitted. It is pleaded inter alia that the proceedings under Sections 107/150, Code of Criminal Procedure, were manipulated by the police who are conniving with the petitioner and they did not produce witnesses. This petition is false; frivolous and misconceived.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

Annexure P5 is the order passed by the learned Magistrate for the purpose of summoning the petitioner in the aforesaid complaint. It reflects that the occurrence took place on May 7, 1996, at 10.30 a.m. in the premises of the Municipal Committee, Patiala, where the respondent is working as Sanitary Inspector. The petitioner allegedly abused him; gave him beatings; and matter was reported by the respondent to the Executive Officer, Municipal Committee on May 7, 1996, who forwarded the complaint to the Station House Officer, Patiala, and the proceedings under Sections 107/150, Code of Criminal Procedure, were initiated. These proceedings were dropped vide order dated May 22, 1997 (Annexure P4) as the respondent had failed to produce his evidence. The petitioner was discharged. On the same set of allegations, as contained in the complaint forwarded by the Executive Officer, referred to above, the present complaint was filed by the respondent on July 9, 1996 (copy Annexure P5) i.e. two months after the alleged occurrence. If the petitioner had already been discharged in respect of the allegations contained n the complaint on the basis of which proceedings under Sections 107/150, Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated, then the question arises whether the petitioner can be tried again for the same offence. The answer to this query is certainly in the negative. It is not only the occurrence rather it is a mala fide act and evil designs on the part of the respondent, who had been dragging the petitioner from one Court to another by filing petitions/complaints from time to time. Whilest dismissing his second petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, Mr. G.S. Khurana, the then Additional District Judge, Patiala, has observed as under :

"It is apparent that the petitioner had been playing hide and seek with the court and his conduct shows that his only motive is to drag the proceedings which may result in harassment to the other party."

Harvinder Pal Singh Sodhi, who was one of the accused along with respondent in a complaint under section 500, Indian Penal Code, filed by the petitioner (Annexure P1) had sworn affidavit dated March 21, 1995, expressing his regret besides stating that the newsitem was published as the respondent wanted to use it against the petitioner. (Copy of the affidavit is Annexure P2). Since this affidavit is not duly proved, therefore, no authenticity is attached to it. It is interesting to note that the respondent in reply to para 8 of the petition has gone to the extent of disowning the filing of the complaint pertaining to the occurrence dated May 7, 1996, referred to above, on the basis of which proceedings under Sections 107/150, Code of Criminal Procedure, were initiated. According to him, the proceedings under Sections 107/150, Code of Criminal Procedure, were manipulated by the police who are conniving with the petitioner. If at all, it was a manipulation by the police, then what was the fun of submitting the application to the police officer on the basis of which the aforesaid proceedings were initiated. It is, therefore, apparent that the proceedings taken by the respondent time and again are nothing else, but an abuse of the process of law.

The trial Court had summoned the respondent for the offence complained of under Sections 452/352/323, Indian Penal Code, vide order dated November 22, 1996 (Annexure P5). The petitioner has already been discharged in respect of the same offence, which is subjectmatter of the complaint, Annexure P5. Thus, the petitioner cannot be tried again for the same offence. There is also a delay in filing the complaint as it was filed two months after the occurrence.

In view of the above discussion, the complaint Annexure P3; the orders, Annexures P5 and P7 and all other proceedings arising out of the complaint are quashed.