21 lakhs moolah for a 21 months marriage !! 498a quashed, DV, 125 withdrawn, ablaa naari free to start LIFE again !! this is what happens IF you don't want to fight and want a quick solution after submitting an one line question !!
Notes
**************
* marriage 16.1.2005
* discard started soon after
* FIR filed on 22.10.2006 !!
* they must have been living separately AT LEAST since October 2006 !!
* SO MAX MAX 21 months matrimony
* 21 lakhs moolah !!
* do I need to say more ??
************************************************************
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
************************************************************
Crl.Misc.No.M- 51878 of 2007 (O&M)
Crl.Misc.No.M-21974 of 20107 (O&M)
************************************************************
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision : 30.5.2013
************************************************************
Crl.Misc.No.M- 51878 of 2007 (O&M)
Nirmal Singh and others ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another .......Respondents
************************************************************
Crl.Misc.No.M-21974 of 20107 (O&M)
Davinder Singh ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another .......Respondents
************************************************************
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
************************************************************
Present: Mr.Daldeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners
Mr.Deep Singh, DAG, Punjab.
Mr.Mandeep Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No.2..
************************************************************
SABINA, J.
************************************************************
Vide this judgment, the above mentioned two petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have sought quashing of FIR No. 63 dated 23.4.2007, registered at Police Station City Mansa under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that marriage between respondent No.2 Navjeet Kaur was performed with Davinder Singh on 16.1.2005. A matrimonial dispute arose between the parties. However, same has been amicably resolved by the parties. Navjeet Kaur and Davinder Singh have got a decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent.
Annexure P-9 is the copy of the compromise deed executed between the parties. A perusal of the same reveals that ` 21,00,000/- were paid by Davinder Singh to Navjeet Kaur towards full and final settlement of her all claims including dowry articles, istridhan articles and permanent alimony. It was also agreed between the parties that the custody of the child would remain with Navjeet Kaur and she would be responsible for bringing up the child. Navjeet Kaur had also agreed that she would withdraw the complaint filed by her under the Domestic Violence Act and would also withdraw the petition filed by her for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Navjeet Kaur would also withdraw civil case filed by her against her in-laws' family and would get the FIR in question quashed.
Affidavit of Navjeet Kaur has been placed on record as Annexure P-12, wherein, she has admitted the factum of compromise and has stated that she has no objection in case the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed.
In the petition filed by Davinder Singh and Navjeet Kaur seeking divorce on the basis of mutual consent, it was observed as under by the trial Court vide judgment dated 6.5.2013 (Annexure P-11):-
"3. The statements of the parties were earlier recorded on
23.10.2012 and they made statements on oath that they
were married on 16.01.2005. After marriage" they resided
together and cohabited as husband and wife. One
daughter namely Chunmun alias Maisha, aged about 6
years, was born from the wedlock. They were residing
separately since October 2006 and they had decided to
get their marriage dissolved by mutual consent. They
settled all the claims against one another. It was settled
between them the daughter would remain in care and
custody of petitioner Navjeet Kaur in future. It was also
settled that petitioner Davinder Singh would pay a sum of
Rs.21 lac on account of dowry articles as well as past and
future maintenance of petitioner Navjeet Kaur and her
daughter and expenses for marriage of the daughter in
lump sum, out of which petitioner Navjeet Kaur received a
sum of ` 10,50,000/- in the shape of five demand drafts,
copies of which were placed on record as Mark-A to
Mark-E and the remaining amount of ` 10,50,000/- would
be paid to her at the time of making final statement. It was
also settled that entire litigation pending between them
would be withdrawn at the time of making statement at
second motion. It was also settled that petitioner Navjeet
Kaur would provide affidavit for facilitating the quashing of
FIR No.648 dated 22.10.2006, under Section 328, 498-A,
506 IPC, P.S. Hari Nagar Delhi West and FIR No.63
dated 23.04.2007 under Section 498-A and 406 IPC, P.S.
City Mansa. Petitioner Navjeet Kaur would also sign the
compromise deed, if required for moving petition for
quashing of said FIRs, at the time of making final
statement. It was further settled that they were residing in
rental accommodation and their household articles were
in the custody of their landlord on the basis of court
orders. Petitioner Davinder Singh would get back all those
household articles from that landlord namely Vikas
Ghambir and would return" the personal belongings of
petitioner Navjeet Kaur and her daughter to petitioner
Navjeeet Kaur. The case was adjourned for more than six
months in terms of Sub Section (2) of Section 13-B of the
Hindu Marriage Act and both the parties made the
statements again on 02.05.2013 abiding by their earlier
statements made on 23.10.2012. They further stated that
petitioner Davinder Singh paid the remaining amount
of ` 10,50,000/- to petitioner Navjeet Kaur in the shape
of demand drafts, photo copies of which were placed on
record as Mark-F to Mark-J. The parties would withdraw
all the litigations filed by them against one another and
they signed the compromise deed, copy of which was
placed on record as Mark-K. They also stated that
petitioner Navjeet Kaur would not "claim any maintenance
from petitioner Davinder Singh in future nor she would file
any case against him. They further stated that all the
matrimonial disputes between them and their family
members had come to an end. They also testified that
during the period of adjourned hearing for six months, no
effort was made by either side for any reconciliation and
they again made the prayer for dissolution of marriage by
mutual consent.
4. From the statements of the parties, I am
satisfied that the parties are legally married. The parties
had been living separately for a period of more than one
year preceding the filing of petition. The parties have not
been able to live together and they have mutually agreed
that their marriage be dissolved. So, this petition is
decreed. Decree of divorce is passed. Marriage of the
parties is hereby dissolved on the basis of mutual consent
of the parties. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to the
record room."
Thus, it is evident that parties have amicably settled their matrimonial dispute with a view to move on in life. As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court felt that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another 2012 (4) RCR (Crl.) 543, has held as under:-
"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
Since the parties have amicably settled their dispute, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, these petitions are allowed. FIR No. 63 dated 23.4.2007, registered at Police Station City Mansa under Sections 406, 498-A IPC and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. dated 13.6.2007 are quashed.
(SABINA)
JUDGE
May 30, 2013
anita
*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family Foundation. SIF is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS DOT NIC / P & H HC WEB SITE
******************************************************************
***********************
FOLLOW
@ATMwithDick on twitter or
http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ (recent blog so recent cases )
FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
regards
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist
No comments:
Post a Comment