Swarn Lata Sood vs Sat Pal

Ujagar Singh, J.

The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner, her son Anil Kumar Sood, her husband Shiv Kamal Sood, and two others, u/ss 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, as amended upto date and u/s 406 Indian Penal Code. The grounds for filing the complaint are that complainant''s daughter Neena Sood was married to A. K. Sood on 1.10. 1984, according to Hindu rites. On the occasion of the marriage dowry articles, mentioned in Annexure A, were given in consideration of the marriage to the petitioner and her other coaccused. They belonged to Neena Sood. The petitioner and other coaccused were not satisfied with the dowry and 2 days after the marriage, the petitioner began to taunt her daughterinlaw and complained about the clothes etc. being of lesser value. Ultimately, it is alleged that the dowry articles were not given to Neena Sood, as required by law and rather, a colour TV and a fridge were demanded. In pursuance of their demand, Neena Sood was maltreated. She wrote a letter to the respondent. A colour TV and a fridge were purchased and the articles were given to the petitioner and her coaccused. Some more articles were demanded which created a problem and disrupted the matrimonial life.

After recording preliminary evidence, the trial Court passed a detailed order, summoning the petitioner and her coaccused to face trial u/ss 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and u/s 406 IPC.

The petitioner has filed this Criminal Miscellaneous for quashing the complaint, as also the summoning order.

Vide order dated 1.8.1988 notice was issued and further proceedings were stayed. Ultimately, this case came up for hearing on 18.8.1988, when on the request of the parties, the case was adjourned to today.

Learned counsel for the parties have produced compromise deed, having been executed by the parties and some respectable. According to the compromise deed, both the husband and wife have agreed that they will file a petition for divorce before the District Judge, Ludhiana within seven days from today, for mutual divorce by consent. The petitioner will give Rs. 50,000/ and all the articles mentioned in Annexure A. Out of this amount of Rs. 50,000/, a sum of Rs. 25,000/ has been given by way of demand draft to Neena Sood today in Court and an other amount of Rs. 25,000/ will be given by the petitioner at the time of passing the divorce decree. Neena Sood has agreed not to claim any alimony or litigation expenses from A. K. Sood hereinafter. Both the husband and wife and others will withdraw all civil and criminal litigation, pending in any Court, within one week from today. They have also undertaken not to initiate any civil or criminal litigation against any of them. It has been further agreed that articles mentioned in Annexure A shall be returned to Neena Sood within seven days from today. It has been further made clear in the terms that the said amount of Rs. 50,000/ includes the amount of arrears of maintenance u/s 125, Cr. PC. pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1 Class, Gidderbaha. This compromise is Annexure C 1. Articles of dowry are mentioned in Annexure C 2. These are 34 items.

I have recorded the statements of A. K. Sood, Neena Sood, and Shri Sat Pai, father of Neena Sood. The complaint has been filed on behalf of Sat Pal.

I have considered the circumstances of the case. The petitioner and her coaccused have been summoned to stand trial under the aforesaid offences, out of which offences u/ss 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are compoundable and offence u/s 406, IPC is also compoundable, but with permission of the Court. In any case, it is in the interests of the parties, as also the society as a whole, that this matrimonial dispute is settled amicably, with the hope that Shri A. K. Sood and Smt. Neena Sood will part company with each other, on getting divorce by mutual consent and settle themselves independently. This will give relief to both the families and avoid litigation which is pending, as also which is likely to be filed, if the present complaint is pursued. As a matter of social policy, there is no way out except to grant permission to the parties to compound this offence. Even otherwise if the complaint is not pursued, as stated by Shri Sat Pal, it will be only futile exercise to proceeding with the complaint and thereby give rise to unnecessary proceedings.

Keeping the foregoing circumstances in view, the complaint filed and the order passed thereon, summoning the petitioner and her coaccused to stand trial under the aforesaid offence are quashed, on the basis of compromise Annexure Cl.