Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Joginder Singh vs Mohinder Kour on 4 May, 2009
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU. 561-A No. 96 OF 2007 Joginder Singh Petitioners Mohinder Kour Respondent !Mr. R.S. Thakur. ^Mr. Baldev Singh Honb�ble Mr. Justice Muzaffar Hussain Attar, Judge. Date: 04/05/2009 :J U D G M E N T :
Petition under section 561-A has been filed by the petitioners to seek quashment of the complaint filed by respondent u/s 494/ 109 RPC which is pending on the files of ld. III Addl. Munsiff Srinagar. In the complaint the allegations are made that accused No.1 has married with accused No.2 during the subsistence of marriage of complainant with accused No.1. On the filing of the said complaint cognizance has been taken of the offences by ld. III Addl. Munsiff and process issued. In the complaint it is stated that accused No.1 had deserted the complainant which constrained her to file proceedings u/s 488 Cr.P.C in which an ex-parte order was passed. The said ex-parte order was challenged by filing revision petition before the ld. Pr. Sessions Judge Srinagar. On 1st of August 2008 the complainant and the petitioner No.3 entered into compromise which inter-alia provided that petitioner No.3 will divorce his second wife within weekb�s time. As no action was taken so respondent was constrained to file the complaint as mentioned above. The petitioners have filed this petition on the principal ground that the marriage between petitioner No.3 and respondent was not subsisting at the time of filing of the complaint as the marriage was dissolved by a decree passed by Additional District Judge (Matrimonial cases Jammu) dated 19th April 2002. Heard learned counsel for parties. Considered the matter. The ld. Counsel for petitioners has submitted that in view of the fact that the marriage between the petitioner No.3 and respondent was already dissolved in pursuance of the court decree so no offences have been committed by petitioners as alleged in the complaint.
Ld. Counsel for respondent submit that factum of passing of the decree of dissolution of marriage was not brought to the notice of the respondent even at the time when parties entered into compromise before the revisional Court . Be that as it may. The question to be considered in this case is whether in the face of decree passed by Additional District Judge Matrimonial cases, Jammu any offence u/s 494 RPC is said to be committed by the petitioners as at the time of filing of the complaint the marriage between petitioner No.3 and respondent was not subsisting. The marriage between petitioner No.3 and respondent admittedly stood dissolved before filing of complaint so allowing it to remain on the files of the III Addl. Munsiff Srinagar would tent-amount to abuse of the process of the court. The proceedings before the courts are not to be allowed to continue for academic purposes alone or to cause harassment to petitioners.
In view of the facts obtaining in this case the complaint titled b� Mohinder Kour v Narrander Paul Singh and ors pending on the files of III Addl. Munsiff Srinagar along with all proceedings taken thereon are quashed. The quashment of the complaint and the proceedings, however, shall not prevent the respondent(s) to initiate appropriate proceedings, if so, advised against petitioner No.3.
Petition allowed.
Jammu (Muzaffar Hussain Attar) 04.05.09 Judge ayaz