Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nachhatter Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Another on 12 January, 2009
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Criminal Revision No.47376 of 2006 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No.M-47376 of 2006
Date of decision: 12.1.2009
Nachhatter Kaur ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another .......Respondent
BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. K.S.Boparai,Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.T.S.Salala, DAG, Punjab
for respondent No.1.
None for respondent No.2.
****
SABINA, J.
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short- "Cr.P.C") for quashing the order dated 2.3.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class Ludhiana (Annexure P-2) and the complaint (Annexure P-1).
Harnek Singh, father of Sharanjeet Kaur, filed a complaint under Sections 406, 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") against Piara Singh, Nachhatter Kaur and four others. Sharanjeet Kaur was married to Piara Singh on 7.12.1986. As per the case of the complainant, he had given sufficient dowry articles at the time of marriage. Criminal Revision No.47376 of 2006 2 Sharanjeet Kaur was serving as a Steno in the office of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Division No.2, Ludhiana. All the accused demanded more dowry and harassed Sharanjeet Kaur. On many occasions Sharanjeet Kaur was given beatings by the accused.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner Nachhatter Kaur was the mother-in-law of Sharanjeet Kaur. A divorce petition was filed by Sharanjeet Kaur on 15.4.1993 and the same was allowed in ex-parte vide judgment and decree dated 7.8.1993. Since Sharanjeet Kaur had sought divorce, the continuation of the proceedings on the basis of the complaint filed by her father on 12.4.1993 was nothing but abuse of process of law.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has argued that the criminal proceedings were initiated before filing of the divorce petition and, as such, the same could continue. Sharanjeet Kaur had been treated with cruelty.
There is merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The marriage between the parties had taken place on 7.12.1986 and from the judgment dated 7.8.1993 passed in the divorce petition (Annexure P-6), it is evident that the parties are started residing separately after 13.9.1992. So far as the divorce petition filed by Sharanjeet Criminal Revision No.47376 of 2006 3 Kaur is concerned, the same was registered on 15.4.1993 as is evident from Annexure P-6 and it was decided in ex-parte on 7.8.1993. So far as the criminal complaint in question is concerned, the same was registered on 12.4.1993 as is evident from Annexure P-2, order dated 2.3.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ludhiana, vide which it was ordered that the accused persons be chargesheeted under Section 498-A IPC.
Since the parties are residing separately since 13.9.1992 and have been granted a decree of divorce at the instance of Sharanjeet Kaur, the continuation of the criminal proceedings on the basis of the complaint (Annexure P-1) is an abuse of process of Court. So far as accused Nachhatter Kaur, Sukhdev Kaur, Balbir Kaur and Manjit Kaur are concerned, their petition for quashing the complaint was allowed by this Court on 3.4.2002. A copy of the order in Criminal Misc. M- No. 20122 of 2001 has been annexed as Annexure P-3.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The complaint (Annexure P-1) and all the proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE January 12, 2009 anita