CRM-M-6047 of 2015 CRM-M-22888 of 2018 (OM)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: March 06, 2020
1. CRM-M-6047 of 2015 (OM)
Jaspreet Kaur and another
… Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and another
… Respondents
2. CRM-M-22888 of 2018 (OM)
Karamjeet Singh
…… Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others
… Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Present Mr. Saajan Singla, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, DAG, Punjab.
****
JAISHREE THAKUR, J.(Oral)
1. By this common order, this Court proposes to dispose of both
the above mentioned petitions since the facts of both the petitions are
common.
2. The petitioner/s seek to quash the FIR No. 166 dated
26.04.2013 registered under Sections 406, 498-A of IPC at Police Station
1 of 8
12-04-2020 01:47:27 :::
CRM-M-6047 of 2015 CRM-M-22888 of 2018 (OM)
-2-
Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar that got registered at the behest of respondent
No. 2.
3. In brief, the facts as stated are that a marriage was solemnised
between respondent No. 2 and one Karamjeet Singh s/o Amar Singh on
11.11.2011 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The petitioners herein
namely Jaspreet Kaur and Gurmit Singh are none other than the married
sister of Karamjeet Singh and petitioner No. 2- Gurmit Singh is the brother
of Karamjeet Singh (husband of complainant-respondent No.2). The
petitioners herein seek the quashing of the FIR by contending that petitioner
No. 1 had been residing in her own matrimonial home since her marriage
and petitioner No. 2 has renounced the world and is presently a Mahant of
Pracheen Shiv Mandir situated in Village Hamirgarh, District Sangrur. As
the marriage between respondent No. 2 and brother of the petitioners was
not successful, an FIR came to be registered at Police Station Zirakpur
District SAS Nagar, Mohali, under Sections 406, 498-A IPC. On the basis
of the allegations in the FIR an enquiry was conducted by the police and the
mother namely Charanjit Kaur and father of the petitioners namely Amar
Singh were found to be innocent. However, a challan was filed against the
petitioners herein. In the meantime, respondent No. 2 and the brother of the
petitioners herein filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage
Act on the basis of which both parties gave their statements before the
District Judge, Patiala stating that all matters had been compromised,
wherein it had been clearly stated that due to basic temperamental
differences they could not adjust with each other despite best efforts and
2 of 8
12-04-2020 01:47:27 :::
CRM-M-6047 of 2015 CRM-M-22888 of 2018 (OM)
-3-
had mutually decided to dissolve their marriage by a decree of divorce. It
was further stated before the District Judge that the matter in dispute had
been settled amicably and all dowry articles and other belongings had been
returned to respondent No. 2 apart from stating that all terms and
conditions agreed upon by the parties would be adhered to. The decree of
divorce was allowed by the District Judge, Patiala on 06.04.2015.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would
contend that the challan that was presented against them is nothing but the
abuse of process of law considering the fact that petitioner No. 1 was
residing in her matrimonial home after having solemnised a marriage in the
year 2000 i.e. 11 years prior to the marriage having been solemnised
between respondent No. 2 and her brother and that petitioner No. 2 has
renounced the world and is a Mahant at Pracheen Shiv Mandir in District
Sangrug. It is contended that none of the parties were residing with
respondent No. 2 or with their brother in their matrimonial home for any
interference in their day to day life nor any attempt to cause harassment or
demand of dowry was made. It is further argued that once the matter inter-
se the parties had been settled between respondent No. 2 and their brother
Karamjeet Singh by way of decree of divorce, continuanace of proceedings
under the FIR would tentamount to unnecessary harassment to the
petitioners herein and therefore, the proceedings under the FIR deserves to
be quashed.
5. A similar plea has been taken for quashing of the FIR by the
husband- Karamjit Singh in Crl. Misc. Petition No.M- 22888 of 2018. It is
3 of 8
12-04-2020 01:47:27 :::
CRM-M-6047 of 2015 CRM-M-22888 of 2018 (OM)
-4-
argued that it was only on account of matrimonial differences that arose
between the parties, which they could not overcome that a petition for
divorce was filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, in which
both parties had suffered a statement that on an oral compromise the parties
have decided to part ways while further contending that the dowry articles
etc. had been returned to the complainant- Sonia. She had categorically
recorded a statement that the parties had amicably settled the matter and
disputes and that she would be bound by the terms and conditions
incorporated in the divorce petition.
6. Notice of motion was issued and appearance was caused on
behalf of respondent No.2 as far back as 27th September 2016, however, no
reply was filed. In fact, the Court gave last opportunity to file reply by an
order dated 10th March 2017 and thereafter by an order dated May 12, 2017
the Court had directed that in case a reply of respondent No.2-complainant
is not filed before the next date of hearing the matter would be heard based
on the pleadings available on the record. A perusal of the orders would
reveal that neither did the counsel put in an appearance nor any reply was
filed. The Crl. Misc. No.M-6047 of 2015 filed by Jaspreet Kaur and
another, sister and brother of husband of the complainant, is pending in this
Court for the past 5 years and matter is being heard on the pleadings
available as respondent No.2 has not put in an appearance to controvert any
of the submissions made that the petitioners herein were residing separately
and had nothing to do with the matrimonial life of the complainant and nor
was there any demand of dowry, the same is taken to be an admitted fact.
4 of 8
12-04-2020 01:47:27 :::
CRM-M-6047 of 2015 CRM-M-22888 of 2018 (OM)
-5-
Moreover, there is also a decree of divorce available on the record which
would reflect that the complainant and the brother of the petitioners have
part ways and have obtained a decree of divorce as far back as 2015 itself,
in which proceedings it has been clearly stated by the complainant that the
marriage did not survive on account of temperamental differences and all
disputes stand settled. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in quashing
the proceedings initiated under the aforesaid FIR No.166 dated 26.04.2013
against the petitioners which has been challenged by way of Crl. Misc.
No.M- 6047 of 2015.
While quashing the aforesaid proceedings initiated under FIR
No.166 dated 26.04.2013, a reliance has been placed on a judgment of the
Supreme Court rendered in Preeti Gupta and another Vs. State of
Jharkhand and another, 2010(7) SCC 667, wherein it has been held that
these days there is an unfortunate tendency to rope in all family members
when a matrimonial dispute arises between the parties. Even otherwise, the
allegations as set out in the FIR pertaining to any demand of dowry or
harassment at the hands of the petitioners herein are not enough to have
constituted any offence under Section 406, 498A of the IPC. The
allegations as set out are non-specific and general in nature.
7. So far as the allegations as set out against the petitioner in Crl.
Misc. No.M-22888 of 2018, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl. Misc.
No.M-22888 of 2018, also argued that in fact the matter has been settled
amicably between the parties and a decree of divorce has already been
obtained as far back as in 2015, while submitting that a compromise had
5 of 8
12-04-2020 01:47:27 :::
CRM-M-6047 of 2015 CRM-M-22888 of 2018 (OM)
-6-
been arrived at between the parties wherein it has been agreed that they
would part their ways since they could not live together on account of
temperamental differences. A reading of the said FIR would again reflect
that there are general allegations that have been made against the petitioner
and his family members without there being any specific details as to when
the demand of dowry was made. In fact, the matter has been compromised
between the parties in which it has clearly been stated that all matrimonial
disputes stand settled. The complainant-respondent No.2 herein had
suffered a statement on 8th September 2014, which is reproduced as under:-
“After the marriage, we cohabited together as husband and
wife and out of this wedlock, no child was born. Due to basic
temperamental differences we could not adjust with each other
and despite our best efforts, we could not reconcile our
differences. Now, at present, I am living separate from the
other petitioner for the last more than one year i.e. Since July,
2013. There is no chance of our living together as husband
and wife in future also. Now, we have mutually decided to
dissolve our marriage by a decree of divorce.
We have amicably settled the matter in dispute. I
have received back all the dowry articles and other belongings
from the other petitioner. All the terms and conditions agreed
upon between the parties are incorporated in the petition itself
which I admit as correct and shall remain bound by the same.
Our marriage be dissolved accordingly.”
6 of 8
12-04-2020 01:47:27 :::
CRM-M-6047 of 2015 CRM-M-22888 of 2018 (OM)
-7-A reading of the aforesaid statement would show that the
“matter in dispute” stands amicably settled and she had received back all the
dowry articles and other belongings from her husband-Karamjeet Singh,
while further stating that she would be bound by the terms and conditions
agreed upon between the parties. A reading of paragraph 4 as mentioned in
the divorce petition reveals that the reasons for separating are none other
than temperamental differences and the fact that they could not adjust with
each other from the very beginning and were residing separately. Even the
efforts of the Panchayat which had been convened for reconciliation did not
have any effect and thereafter with the intervention of respectables and
relatives a compromise was effected in which they had decided to dissolve
the marriage by a divorce with mutual consent.
8. Even though learned State Counsel would contend that there is
no compromise between the parties to drop the proceedings that had been
initiated under the FIR, however, this argument would not be sustainable in
view of the fact that the parties have resolved to set aside their differences
and to dissolve their marriage by a decree of divorce with mutual consent.
If in the opinion of the Court, if all the differences are to be set aside, the
same would be applicable to proceedings that were initiated under the FIR,
which came to be registered at the behest of the complianant-respondent
No.2 only on account of an unhappy marriage.
9. Even otherwise, reliance can be placed upon a judgement
rendered in Shlok Bhardwaj vs. Runika Bhardwaj, 2015(1) RCR Crl. 249
wherein it has been held that criminal proceedings filed by a wife before the
7 of 8
12-04-2020 01:47:27 :::
CRM-M-6047 of 2015 CRM-M-22888 of 2018 (OM)
-8-
divorce ought not to continue. The facts mentioned in the aforesaid
judgment are similar to the facts of the instant case.
10. In view of the above, both the petitions stand allowed and all
proceedings initiated under FIR No. 166 dated 26.04.2013 registered under
Sections 406, 498-A of IPC at Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar
are quashed.
March 06, 2020 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
seema JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
8 of 8
12-04-2020 01:47:27 :::