Allowed

Harish Kumar Sachdeva and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Jan 2012CRM-M/31473/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashed an FIR registered for dowry harassment and cruelty. The parties had settled all disputes amicably and the wife obtained a mutual consent divorce decree. The Single Judge allowed the petition quashing subsequent proceedings and discharged the petitioner husband.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.60 dated 23.06.2004 and all subsequent proceedings quashed; petitioners discharged.

Harish Kumar Sachdeva and Ors. Vs State of Punjab… — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No.M-31473 of 2008(O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.16950 of 2011 and CRM No.M-31473 of 2008(O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision:02.01.2012

¶6

Harish Kumar Sachdeva and others ......Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and another .....Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.

¶10

Present: Mr.Manvinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr.C.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No. 1.

¶12

Mr.O.P.Kamboj, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶13

¶14

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(oral)

¶15

The matrix of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present petition and emanating from the record is that, the marriage of complainant-Anita Arora(respondent No.2) was solemnised with Harish Kumar Sachdeva(petitioner No.1) on 13.05.2003, according to the Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Ludhiana. After solemnisation of the marriage, they lived together, cohabited as a husband and wife and one male child was born out of the said wedlock. Sufficient dowry articles in the shape of gifts, were stated to have been given to the husband and his relatives by the parents of respondent No.2 at the time of marriage. It was claimed that the petitioners were not satisfied and started demanding more dowry articles and cash. Since, respondent No.2 and her parents could not fulfill the demand of dowry, so, the petitioners started treating her with cruelty, gave beatings and turned her out of the matrimonial home.

¶16

Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of

¶17

CRM No.M-31473 of 2008(O&M)

¶18

¶19

events in all, according to the complainant(respondent No.2) that the petitionersaccused misappropriated her dowry articles and treated her with cruelty on account of and in connection with further demand of dowry. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of respondent No.2, the present case was registered against the petitioners-accused, vide FIR No.60 dated 23.06.2004 (Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 120-B IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the police of Police Station Ferozepur Cantt., in the manner depicted hereinabove.

¶20

Aggrieved by the registration of the criminal case, petitionerhusband-Harish Kumar Sachdeva and his relatives(other petitioners) preferred the present petition for quashing the FIR (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings thereto, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶21

Not only that, respondent No.2 had also filed the divorce petition against her husband. During the pendency of the indicated cases, good sense prevailed and the matter was compromised between the parties. Respondent No.2 withdrew the divorce petition to enable them to file a divorce petition for dissolution of their marriage by way of mutual consent under Section 13-B of The Hindu Marriage Act(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). Consequently, petitioner-Harish Kumar Sachdeva and respondent No.2 filed a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Act.

¶22

During the course of pendency of the divorce petition, respondent No.2 made the following statement on 07.12.2011:-

¶23

“My statement was recorded on 7.6.2011 along with statement of my husband. Six months time was given to us to ponder over the matter, but we could not reconcile. One male child namely Ansh was born from our wedlock, who shall remain under my care and custody and petitioner No.1 will not claim his custody in future. We have settled all our disputes amicably regarding dowry articles, for past, present and future maintenance as well as permanent alimony. I have received the remaining

¶24

CRM No.M-31473 of 2008(O&M)

¶25

¶26

amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash from petitioner No.1 and have returned the security cheque No.165445 to petitioner No.1 and now nothing is due against each other. We have been living separately since 10.11.2003. After that there is no cohabitation between us. There is no scope of our living together as husband and wife. I shall remain bound by the terms and conditions as enshrined in the petition. Our marriage may be dissolved by passing a decree of divorce by mutual consent.”

¶27

Similar statement was suffered by petitioner No.1(husband) as well.

¶28

Taking into consideration the fact that the parties have already settled their matrimonial disputes and the wife has received all the articles of Istridhan, besides cost of `2,75,000/-, as permanent alimony from petitioner No.1, the District Judge, Ludhiana, accepted the divorce petition and dissolved their marriage by a decree of divorce dated 07.12.2011.

¶29

Moreover, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that in view of the settlement of disputes between the parties and dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent, the instant petition deserves to be accepted.

¶30

Above being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in this petition is as to whether the FIR(Annexure P-1) deserves to be quashed in this respect or not?

¶31

Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to me, justice would be sub-served, if the FIR (Annexure P-1) is quashed and the parties are allowed to live in peace after decree of divorce.

¶32

Sequelly, the law of settlement of criminal disputes by virtue of compromise is no more res integra and is well settled. The clear and explicit intention of the Legislature in this context was transformed in reality by Hon'ble Apex Court in cases Manoj Sharma v. State & Ors. 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 827; B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana 2003 (2) RCR (Crl.) 888 (SC) and Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2007

¶33

CRM No.M-31473 of 2008(O&M)

¶34

¶35

(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 .

¶36

The crux of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is that the power under section 482 Cr.PC has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and everlasting congeniality in society and resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same, unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery if the statement is fair being free from under pressure. Meaning thereby, the High Court has unlimited power to quash the criminal proceedings, relatable to such matrimonial cases, on the basis of lawful settlement. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is fully attracted in the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.

¶37

As is evident from the record that in the instant case, as the parties have lawfully and amicably settled the disputes and dissolved their marriage by way of mutual consent by a decree of divorce, therefore, to my mind, there is no impediment in translating their wishes into reality and to quash the criminal prosecution to set the matter at rest to enable them to live in peace and to enjoy the life and liberty in a dignified manner.

¶38

In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, FIR No.60 dated 23.06.2004( Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed and the petitioners are accordingly discharged from the indicated case, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

¶39

January 02, 2012 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) seema JUDGE

¶40

CRM No.M-31473 of 2008(O&M) 5

Harish Kumar Sachdeva and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harish Kumar Sachdeva and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Daljeet Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Lakhbir Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Gopi & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Jagraj Singh and Anr. Vs Raj Kaur and Ors.

Vinod Kumar Vs Dalip Singh and Anr.

Bachna Ram Vs M/S Suraj Bhan Om Parkash Bansal