Punjab-Haryana High Court
Inderjit Singh vs Rajwant Kaur on 8 November, 2012
Author: K.C. Puri
Bench: K.C. Puri
CRM No. M.3019 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No. M.3019 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision : 08.11.2012
Inderjit Singh
................ Petitioner
vs.
Rajwant Kaur
................. Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Shri Malkeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri Jagnahar Singh, Advocate for the respondent.
K.C. Puri, J.
Challenge in this petition is the complaint No.476/1/04 dated 13.09.2004 titled as Rajwant Kaur versus Inderjit Singh & others under Sections 406, 498-A, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short - the IPC) Annexure P-2 and summoning order dated 11.12.2004 Annexure P-3 and order dated 4.9.2006 Annexure P-4 declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was married with respondent on 27.8.2001. The petitioner was non-resident India living in USA and came for the purpose of marriage and stayed in India for a short period of about three months and he went back to USA in the first week of CRM No. M.3019 of 2012 2 November 2001. Soon after marriage parties could not adjust together. On 26.2.2004, a Panchayat was convened and matter was compromised. In spite of the compromise, the above said complaint has been filed against the petitioner, his parents elder brother and sister-in-law. The summoning order has been passed in that complaint. The parties filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and in view of the settlement ex-parte decree of divorce was granted. The respondent got the complaint dismissed as withdrawn by making a statement in the Court on 21.10.2009 to the effect that she has entered into compromise with the accused.
3. Vide order dated 22.2.2012, the petitioner was allowed to appear before the trial Court and was ordered to be released on interim bail.
4. The petition was contested by the respondents. It is pleaded that respondent is not signatory to the compromise. The complaint was withdrawn on 21.10.2009 against the other accused and not the petitioner. So, prayer has been made for dismissal of the petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
6. The factual position is not in much dispute. Marriage has taken place on 27.8.2001. The petitioner is a NRI. The compromise is Annexure P-1, which was signed by parents of the parties. In the compromise it is mentioned that the same has been arrived at between the parties with the consent of both the parties. The respondent now want to avoid the compromise on the ground that she is not signatory to the compromise and as such the same is not binding. However, the fact CRM No. M.3019 of 2012 3 remains that ex-parte decree of divorce has been passed in favour of respondent vide judgment and decree dated 2.4.2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. The complainant herself has withdrawn the complaint in which it is mentioned that she withdraws the complaint and the accused present in the Court be acquitted. The respondent would have been the last person to withdraw the complaint against the other family members of the petitioner in case there would have been not any compromise. Otherwise also, the respondent has not denied the compromise Annexure P-1 but has stated that it does not bear her signatures. The marriage between the parties remains alive for only few months. Compromise Annexure P-1 was signed by relatives of the parties. An ex-parte decree of divorce has been passed. The respondent has rectified the compromise by withdrawing the complaint against the family members of the accused. The petitioner was abroad at that time otherwise complaint against the petitioner at that time would have also been withdrawn. So, in these circumstances, the complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court.
7. In authority Ruchi Agarwal versus Amit Kumar Agrawal reported in 2004 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal ) page 949, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that where there are criminal and civil proceedings between the parties and parties entering into compromise and getting the divorce though by mutual consent in that case and wife not withdrawing the FIR registered under Section 498-A and 506 of the IPC despite compromise, the said FIR was quashed being an abuse of the process of the Court for CRM No. M.3019 of 2012 4 harassing the husband.
8. Again Hon'ble Apex Court in authority Mohd. Shamim versus Smt. Nahid Begum reported in 2005 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal ) page 697 quashed the FIR where there was compromise but wife resiling from the compromise. The same view was taken by this Court in authorities Ram Lal & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. 2008 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal ) 823 ; Mehar Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab reported in 2010 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) page 167 and Ravinder Kumar Kohli and others vs. State of Punjab and another 2011 (5) R.C.R. (Criminal ) page
20.
9. So, in view of the above discussion, the present petition stands accepted. The complaint and the further proceedings in the shape of summoning order, order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender, stand quashed.
10. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.
( K.C. Puri ) 16.11.2012 Judge sv