Mandeep Singh vs State of Punjab and Another

B. Rai, J.—Mandeep Singh and his parents Bilhar Singh and Rajinder Kaur have come to this Court with this petition u/s 482, Criminal Procedure Code with a prayer to quash FIR No. 41 dated 19.2.1997 under Sections 406/498-A, Indian Penal Code and u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Bathinda and all other proceedings arising therefrom.

Brief facts of the case are that Mandeep Singh, petitioner was married with Ravjot Kaur on 15.10.1995 at Bathinda according to Sikh rites. After the marriage, differences arose between the husband and wife and they started living separately with effect from 5.11.1995. Their differences could not be resolved even on the intervention of relatives and friends. Both the husband and wife locked horns in a chain of civil and criminal litigation. Ultimately Ravjot Kaur made a complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda levelling allegations of harassment, maltreatment and demand of dowry against petitioners on the basis of which FIR referred to above was registered against Mandeep Singh and his parents. Again relatives and common friends of the parties intervened so as to bring an end to the litigation between the husband and wife. Despite best efforts reapprochment between husband and wife could not be brought about. Ultimately they agreed to seek mutual divorce so that the husband and wife start a life afresh and settle peacefully. Mandeep Singh also agreed to pay Rs. 3,81,000/- to Ravjot Kaur in the shape of bank draft in full and final settlement of her claims with regard to past, present and future maintenance, marriage expenses, Istri Dhan and dowry articles etc. All other claims were agreed to be abandoned by the wife. They also agreed to withdraw all the civil and criminal cases pending against each other in different Courts.

In response to notice of motion Ravjot Kaur filed reply admitting all the averments contained in the petition.

On 6.7.1998 Ravjot Kaur put in personal appearance and expressed her desire to make statement. Her statement was separately recorded which reads as under :

"In October, 1995, I was married to Mandeep Singh. After 15 days of the marriage disputes arose between me and my husband on account of different temperaments. We tried our level best to reconcile but all efforts failed. Our relatives and common friends also tried to bring about reapprochment but all efforts failed. Ultimately things became bad to worse. Therefore, under the stress of circumstances I lodged a complaint against my husband Mandeep Singh and his parents Bilhar Singh and Rajinder Kaur. After the registration of the case, on the intervention of relatives and friends, we decided to say good-bye to each other for ever by seeking a decree of divorce. It was also decided that Mandeep Singh would pay Rs. 3,81,000/- as permanent alimony and will return all the dowry articles. I have received five drafts No. 079211 dated 2.12.1997 revalidated on 30.5.1998 drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Bathinda; No. 453607 dated 2.5.1998drawnonPunjab National Bank, Bathinda; Nos. 811776, 811775, 277785 dated 2.12.1997 and 15.5.1997 respectively revalidated on 22.5.1998 amounting to Rs. 3,81,000/- Nothing remains to be paid by Mandeep Singh or his parents. We have obtained a decree of divorce also. Under these circumstances, I do not want to pursue the case registered at my instance. I have no objection if the FIR No. 41 dated 19.2.1997 under Sections 406/498-A, Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Bhatinda is quashed."

Mandeep Singh and Ravjot Kaur, complainant-respondent could not pull on together as husband and wife due to difference of temperaments. On intervention of relatives they agreed to seek divorce and in fact their marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce. Mandeep Singh, petitioner has paid Rs. 3,81,000/ - in the shape of bank drafts on account of past, present and future maintenance. Dowry articles have been returned to Ravjot Kaur. They have agreed to settle afresh in life. They have also agreed to withdraw civil and criminal cases pending against each other. They have thus sorted out all the disputes. The complainant is not inclined to pursue the criminal case and is not willing to make a statement in support of the allegations contained in the FIR in question. In these circumstances, if criminal proceedings are permitted to go on, it would neither be in the interest of the parties nor in the public interest and it would tantamount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, I am of the view that FIR No. 41 dated 19.2.1997 under Sections 406/498-A, Indian Penal Code and u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Bathinda and all other proceedings arising therefrom should be quashed and that would serve the ends of justice. I order accordingly.