Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harbir Singh Sethi And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 9 December, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl.Misc.No.M- 3746 of 2011(O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
222 Crl.Misc.No.M- 3746 of 2011(O&M)
Date of decision: 9.12.2013
Harbir Singh Sethi and others
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate,
the petitioners.
Mr.J.S.Brar, AAG, Punjab.
Ms.Deepali Puri, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
****
SABINA, J.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) by the petitioners seeking quashing of criminal complaint No.103-T of 14.2.2001/ 14.6.2003 (Annexure P-1) titled 'Pritpal Singh vs. Gurvinder Kaur and another' and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom as well as summoning order dated 2.3.2001 (Annexure P-2), summoning the petitioners, under Sections 500/ 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short).
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Devi Anita petitioner No.2 got married to son of respondent No.2 on 14.9.1997. 2013.12.16 10:20 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M- 3746 of 2011(O&M) 2 FIR No.201 dated 4.6.1999 under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC was got registered at Police Station Ambala City by petitioner No.2 against her husband Bikram Singh and his family members including respondent No.2. However, during the pendency of the said proceedings, parties amicably settled their dispute. Marriage between petitioner No.2 and son of respondent No.2 was dissolved on the basis of mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act for short). Due to compromise effected between the parties, petitioner No.2 withdrew the petition filed by her under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against her husband. As the offence was not compoundable qua the FIR in question, petitioner No.2 did not support the prosecution case and consequently all the accused including respondent No.2 were acquitted by the trial Court in FIR No. 201 dated 4.6.1999 under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC registered at Police Station Ambala City. Hence, the complaint filed by the complainant under Sections 342/182/500/ 120-B IPC (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings were liable to be quashed.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that on account of filing of the criminal case against respondent No.2, he was suspended and had faced lot of defamation. Respondent No.2 was not signatory to the compromise effected between petitioner No.2 and her husband.
In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal,, 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as Devi Anita under:-
2013.12.16 10:20 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M- 3746 of 2011(O&M) 3 "The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:-
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No.2, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. Devi Anita (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a 2013.12.16 10:20 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M- 3746 of 2011(O&M) 4 cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in Devi Anita embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or 2013.12.16 10:20 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M- 3746 of 2011(O&M) 5 genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." Case of the complainant, as per complaint (Annexure P-
1), in brief, is that petitioner No.2 got married to Bikram Singh, son of the complainant, on 14.9.1997. At the instance of petitioner No.1, petitioner No.2 left the matrimonial home. Petitioner No.2 lodged FIR against the complainant and his family members levelling false allegations. On account of this, complainant was suspended on 2.7.1999 and had remained in police custody. Complainant contested the police challan. However, complainant was acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 12.1.2001. Hence, the complaint in question was filed.
Admittedly, in the present case, son of complainant- respondent No.2 got married to petitioner No.2 in the year 1997. Petitioner No.2 got registered FIR against respondent No.2 and others. Annexure P-5 is the petition filed by petitioner No.2 and Bikram Singh under Section 13-B of the Act. Para Nos. 5 and 8 of the said petition read as under:-
5 . That with the intervention of respectable and relatives, the parties have compromised keeping in view their ages and both the parties have also lost their faith on each other and it was settled that both the parties will get their marriage dissolved u/s 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act and Devi Anita both the parties will withdraw their allegations. It is also 2013.12.16 10:20 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M- 3746 of 2011(O&M) 6 agreed that both the minor will remain with party No. 1 and he will maintain, educate and look after them. It is also settled that Party No.1will pay lump sum amount of `. l,50,000/- to party No. 2, in lieu of past & future maintenance as well as in lieu of dowry articles. After receiving the amount of `. l,50,000/- there will be no claim of party No. 2 against party No. 1 as well as his family members. There is no claim of party No. 1 towards the party No. 2 and her family members.There is no scope for reconciliation and the parties cannot reside as husband and wife.
8. That a petition U/s 125 Cr.P.C filed by party No. 1 is pending before C.J.M, Ambala and another case U/s 406/498-A IPC etc. against party No.1 and other family members is pending before C.J.M. Patiala and except these litigations, no case is pending in any court or decided by any court, and the petitioner no.2 will not prosecute the cases pending at Ambala court and will withdrew the same."
Annexure P-6 is the order passed in the petition filed by petitioner No.2 and her husband under Section 13-B of the Act. A perusal of the said order revels that it was prayed by the parties in the said petition that they had amicably settled their dispute. They had also decided the dispute qua custody of children as well as maintenance and decree of divorce was passed in favour of Devi Anita petitioner No.2 and Bikram Singh under Section 13-B of the Act on 2013.12.16 10:20 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M- 3746 of 2011(O&M) 7 6.11.2000.
Thus, from the above annexures/documents, it is evident that parties had amicably settled their matrimonial dispute.
Annexure P-7 is the copy of the judgment passed in Civil Appeal No.58/ 20.8.2008 decided on 22.2.2010 in an appeal filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioners challenging the decision of the trial Court dated 22.7.2008 in a suit filed by him claiming damages to the tune of ` 10,00,000/- . Para 16 of the said judgment reads as under:-
"In order to appreciate the rival contentions, I have gone through the record. It is discernible from the record that no doubt, a criminal case vide FIR No.201 dated 4.6.99 under Sections 406/ 498-A IPC was registered against the appellant/ plaintiff and he had remained incustody of the police in that very case, but the same is in pursuance of the law of the land. When the defendant/ respondent No.1 felt aggrieved by the acts of the plaintiff and other family members, then, she opted to register a criminal case against him. It is a different matter that later on, a compromise was effected between the parties. A perusal of the application Ex.D-1 shows that earlier Bikram Singh son of the present plaintiff had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent/ defendant No.1 Gurbinder Kaur. But, vide this application dated 6.10.2000, Bikram Devi Anita Singh son of the present plaintiff in para No.3 of the 2013.12.16 10:20 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M- 3746 of 2011(O&M) 8 application has mentioned that he has effected a compromise with Gurbinder Kaur and that he and Gurbinder Kaur will withdrew their allegations against each other. So, it is only because of this very compromise that the respondent/ respondent Gurbinder Kaur has withdrawn the allegations against the plaintiff and his other family members. In addition to it, even the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was also withdrawn. So, this shows that the appelant/ plaintiff was not falsely implicated in the case under Sections 406/ 498-A IPC, rather he was acquitted in the said case only because of the fact that his family had entered into a compromise with Gurbinder Kaur. So, the appellant/ plaintiff was not entitled to any compensation (damages), as his prosecution under Sections 406/ 498-A IPC was not malicious, rather genuine one. Even otherwise also, there is nothing on record to show that the court had acquitted the appellant/ plaintiff only because of the fact that his prosecution was malicious one or that the case against him was false. Even when the accused is acquitted for want of evidence or the court extends him the benefit of doubt, the said accused is not entitled to any compensation or damages from the complainant party. So the findings recorded by the learned trial court on issues No.1 and 2 are well in conformity with facts and Devi Anita law and as such, the contention raised by the learned 2013.12.16 10:20 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M- 3746 of 2011(O&M) 9 counsel for the appellant/ plaintiff is hereby dismissed."
The judgment/ decree of the trial Court, whereby the suit filed by respondent No.2 claiming damages was dismissed, was upheld by the Appellate Court vide Annexure P-7.
Thus, in the present case, the matrimonial dispute between the son of the complainant-respondent No.2 with petitioner No.2 was amicably settled. Due to said compromise, petitioner No.2 withdrew the petition filed by her claiming maintenance. Petitioner No.2 and Bikram Singh, son of respondent No.2 got a decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent. In the divorce proceedings, petitioner No.2 undertook that she would not not pursue the FIR No. 201 dated 4.6.1999 under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC registered at Police Station Ambala City. Due to this reason, petitioner No.2 did not support the prosecution case during trial and as a result, respondent No.2 was acquitted of the charges framed against him. Although, respondent No.2 earned his acquittal in the criminal proceedings in view of compromise effected between the parties but now he has taken the plea that he was not signatory to the compromise. Complainant cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath. Since the complainant had earned his acquittal in the criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise effected between the parties, he was rightly denied the damages claimed by him. Further petitioners cannot be prosecuted qua commission of offence punishable under Section 500/120-B IPC. Petitioner No.2 had taken recourse to law on account of harassment meted out to her by her in-laws. It is only due Devi Anita to compromise effected between the parties, petitioner No.2 did not 2013.12.16 10:20 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M- 3746 of 2011(O&M) 10 support the prosecution case during trial which lead to acquittal of respondent No.2 and other accused. The said act of petitioner No.2 cannot be said to be defamatory.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. The trial Court erred in ordering the summoning of petitioners to face the trial under Sections 500/ 120-B IPC. The Court of revision further erred in dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioners vide order dated 25.10.2010 (Annexure P-4). The courts below have failed to appreciate that on the one hand respondent No.2 earned his acquittal in the criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise effected between the parties and on the other hand, he again wanted to indulge in litigation with his daughter-in-law. In the present case, grave miscarriage of justice would occur to the petitioners if the criminal proceedings in question are allowed to continue against them in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Criminal complaint No.103-T of 14.2.2001/ 14.6.2003 (Annexure P-1) titled 'Pritpal Singh vs. Gurvinder Kaur and another' and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom as well as summoning order dated 2.3.2001 (Annexure P-2) are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE December 09, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.12.16 10:20 I am approving this document Chandigarh