Allowed

Roshan Lal v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Dec 2019CRM-M/21925/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed the appellant's petition to quash criminal proceedings under 498-A IPC. The court held that a mutual settlement and divorce decree warranted exercising inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and harassment.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 373 and all subsequent proceedings under Sections 323, 498-A, 406, and 506 IPC were quashed, and the conviction and order of the SDJM were set aside.

Roshan Lal Vs State of Haryana and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

-1-

¶2

Criminal Misc. No. M-21925 of 2019 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-21925 of 2019 (O&M) Date of decision : December 02, 2019

Roshan Lal

....Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana and another

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Fateh Deep Singh

¶11

Present : Mr. Ankush Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Ripu Daman Singh, AAG, Haryana for the State Mr. Pardeep Sharma, Advocate, for respondent no. 2

¶12

Fateh Deep Singh, J. (Oral)

¶13

A criminal case by way of FIR No. 373 dated 8.9.2013 under Sections 323, 498-A, 406 & 506 IPC was got registered with Police Station Pataudi, Gurugram against accused Roshan Lal being the husband, Kartar Singh and Sona Devi being father and mother of the husband respectively by complainant Babita.

¶14

The brief allegations were to the effect that the marriage between the complainant and accused Roshan Lal was solemnized on 16.4.2012 where the complainant family had given immense dowry gifts qua items as well as household costly items besides cash. It is alleged that the accused family was not happy with the same and often physically and mentally tortured the lady and after

¶15

DALBIR SINGH TIWANA 2021.11.30 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

Criminal Misc. No. M-21925 of 2019 (O&M) -2-

¶17

repeated interventions the matter was resolved only temporarily but again erupted on account of similar conduct by the accused. The accused were put up for trial where the complainant testified as PW1 and examined her mother Kishanwati as PW2, brother Rajesh as PW3. PW4 ASI Pehlad Singh detailed the investigations followed by PW5 HC Jitender and in the process the prosecution proved documents Ex. PW1/A to Ex. PW1/F, Ex. PW4/A to Ex. PW4/B.

¶18

The accused in their stand denied the allegations and had taken the simplicitor plea of innocence and mediator of this marriage DW1 Siya Ram and co-villager DW2 Ram Niwas corroborated the stand of the defence. Thereafter the evidence was closed. The court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pataudi vide judgment/order dated 30.10.2018/31.10.2018 acquitted Kartar Singh and Sona Devi whereas found accused Roshan Lal guilty for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and sentenced him as follows:-

¶19

Sr.	Offence U/s	Rigorous	Fine	In default of making
No.		imprisonment for a period of		payment the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment
1	498-A IPC	3 years	Rs 10,000/-	9 months
2	323 IPC	1 year	Rs 1,000/-	4 months
3	506 IPC	1 year	Rs 10,000/-	4 months

¶20

It is during the intervening period a compromise was arrived at between the parties when the appeal of the convict-

¶21

DALBIR SINGH TIWANA 2021.11.30 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

Criminal Misc. No. M-21925 of 2019 (O&M) -3-

¶23

appellant Roshan Lal was pending. In pursuance of the same, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the convict seeking quashment of the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned SDJM, Pataudi (Gurugram) on the basis of compromise Annexure P/3.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for respondent no. 2/complainant have sought to impress upon the court that the parties have settled their dispute through compromise deed attested copy of which has been placed on the record and is dated 5.2.2019. It is claimed that as a consequence of this settlement, the parties have also got their marriage dissolved through a decree of divorce through mutual consent whereby the complainant wife has undertaken to get the present criminal prosecution and conviction set aside. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Bitan Sengupta Vs. State of West Bengal, 2018 SCC Online SC 762, Sube Singh VS. State of Haryana 2013 (4) RCR (Criminal) 102, Dr. Arvind Brasul Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2008 (5) SCC 794 and Sarbjit Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others (CRM-M 3189 of 2014). Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court in B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another AIR 2003 SC 1386 held as follows:- “There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter

¶25

DALBIR SINGH TIWANA 2021.11.30 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

Criminal Misc. No. M-21925 of 2019 (O&M) -4-

¶27

XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interest of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code” .

¶28

Similar view was expressed by their Lordships of Hon'ble Apex Court in Bitan Sengupta Vs. State of West Bengal, 2018 SCC Online SC 762 holding that where the parties have compromised and there is specific undertaking given by the complainant wife that she does not want to prosecute the appellant the interest of justice demand that continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of the court. Since it is a pure matrimonial dispute between the couple and the offences for which the petitioner-husband has been found guilty are not of

¶29

DALBIR SINGH TIWANA 2021.11.30 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

Criminal Misc. No. M-21925 of 2019 (O&M) -5-

¶31

heinous nature and rather would be in the interest of the parties being young and chances of their future settlement are quite bright and it would be a futile exercise to allow the parties to proceed against each other over a dispute which has been put an end to. Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are unbridled and can be exercised to meet the ends of justice and thus to prevent further harassment to the appellant who had sufficiently compensated the complainant and both have obtained a mutual divorce impels this Court to exercise its inherent powers and thereby allow the petition as a consequence of which FIR No. 373 dated 8.9.2013 under Sections 323, 498-A, 406 & 506 IPC, Police Station Pataudi, Gurugram and all proceedings arising out of it are quashed. The judgment/order dated 30.10.2018/31.10.2018 passed Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pataudi is also set aside thereby acquitting the accused-petitioner.

¶32

The present petition stands disposed of.

¶33

( Fateh Deep Singh ) December 02, 2019 Judge 'tiwana'

¶34

Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No Whether Reportable ? Yes/No

¶35

DALBIR SINGH TIWANA 2021.11.30 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Roshan Lal v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan Lal v. State of Haryana 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

Sombir and Another Vs State of Haryana and Another

Atithi Vs State of Haryana and Others

Rajesh Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Karmanya Gupta Vs State of Haryana

Sartaj Singh Vs Surinder Kaur

Amit Kumar Vs State of U T Chandigarh & Another