Navpreet Kaur vs Balbir Kaur

S.S. Grewal, J.

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, relates to quashment of complain filed by Smt. Balbir Kaur, present respondent, against the petitioners under Section 494 read with Sections 109 and 464 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala and consequent proceedings taken on the basis of the said complaint including the order dated 14.9.1990 for summoning the petitioners.

Manjit Singh, his wife Kamalpreet Kaur, Bakhtawar Singh and Gurmaij Kaur, parents of Manjit Singh accused have also filed petition i.e. Criminal Misc No. 753M of 1991, for quashment of the aforesaid complain and the summoning order and other consequential proceedings taken against the said petitioner by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala. As common questions of law and fact are involved, both these petitions shall be disposed of by one order.

According to the complainant she was married with Shamsher Singh accused on 16.6.1976 at village Saidowal District Kapurthala, according to Anand Karaj ceremonies. Bakhtawar Singh and Gurmej Kaur accused are the parents of Shamsher Singh petitioner. Manjit Singh is the brother of Shamsher Singh petitioner and Kamalpreet Kaur is the wife of Manjit Singh petitioner. Navpreet Kaur accused remarried Shamsher Singh knowing fully well that Shamsher Singh was already married with the complainant. Sohan Singh Chadha and Surinder Kaur accused were the mediators, who arranged the second marriage of Shamsher Singh with Navpreet Kaur petitioner. Out of the marriage of the complainant with Shamsher Singh accused, a female child Ravinder Kaur alias Babbi was born from the said wedlock. After August, 1982, relations between the parties became strained. Shamsher Singh compelled the complainant to bring more money from her parents. Prior to that Avtar Singh complainants''s brother had given huge amount to Shamsher Singh accused on the latter''s demand. Parents of the complainant could not meet further unreasonable and illegal demands of Shamsher Singh accused who then started maltreating the complainant. There was litigation between them qua recovery of Ravinder Kaur. Since then the complainant was abandoned by Shamsher Singh petitioner. Shamsher Singh petitioner then filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking divorce whereas the complainant filed another complaint against Shamsher Singh, his parents and brother Manjit Singh under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complainant filed application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/ per month and during these proceedings Shamsher Singh is stated to have stealthily and with mala fide design contracted second marriage with Navpreet Kaur at Phagwara with the connivance of their other coaccused. The second marriage too was performed according to Anand Karaj by performing Lawan before the Holy Guru Granth Sahib. Amrit lal and Parampal Singh raised objection and asked the accused as to how their marriage cold be performed while the first wife of Shamsher Singh accused was alive. All the accused asserted that the marriage between the complainant and Shamsher Singh accused had already been dissolved by a decree of divorce even though such proceedings are still pending in the court of Addl. District Judge, Ludhiana. Navpreet Kaur accused too have given birth to a male child from her wedlock with Shamsher Singh accused. It was also alleged that the father''s name of the male child born to Navpreet Kaur on 5.4.1986 was wrongly mentioned as Manjit Singh instead of Shamsher Singh accused. Thus, by contracting second marriage, Shamsher Singh and Navpreet kaur accused, Bakhtawar Singh and Gurmej Kaur parents of Shamsher singh Accused have committed an offence punishable under Section 494 of the IPC whereas their other coaccused committed an offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.

In reply, the complainant raised preliminary objection that in the instant case question of alleged second marriage of Shamsher Singh with Navpreet Kaur is a disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into the present proceedings and the complaint is liable to be quashed. Besides some other objections concerning the wrong entries made in the birth register were also raised. It was asserted that Shamsher Singh has entered into second marriage with Navpreet Kaur and there is no legal or cogent material on the record in order to quash the complaint or the proceedings taken thereunder against the accusedpetitioners.

Learned counsel for the parties submitted that both the parties including the present complainant had already effected compromise in order to put an end to all matrimonial, civil and criminal litigations between the parties, vide compromise deed dated 5.5.93. As per the compromise deed dated 5.5.1993, Shamsher Singh had agreed to pay Rs 1,50,000/ to Balbir Kaur towards settlement of all claims including dowry, Istridhan and maintenance of past and future and it was agreed that Shamsher Singh would first withdraw all the cases filed by him and thereafter Balbir Kaur will withdraw the cases filed by her against Shamsher Singh and others in various courts and that Balbir Kaur would be responsible for the maintenance, studies and marriage of her child. In compliance with the order dated 5.5.93 an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ was deposited in the Fixed Deposit Receipt in the name of the complainant in the State Bank of Patiala, High Court Branch. It was further directed that Balbir Kaur petitioner (complainant) would be at liberty to withdraw the same with the permission of the court and the Bank was directed to keep the amount in Fixed Deposit Receipt for three years.

Mr. Kang appearing on behalf of Smt.Balbir Kaur complainant stated at the Bar that the complainant has since gone to Canada and she would be returning to India after a few years and the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ may be deposited in the Fixed Deposit Account so that she can withdraw the same after she returns to India, with the permission of the court whereas the learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Jasbir Singh, Advocate stated at the Bar that his client has no objection regarding depositing the aforesaid amount in the Fixed Deposit Account or for subsequent withdrawal with the permission of the court, by the complainant.

In view of the statement of counsel for the parties and the fact that two main contestants have effected a compromise, it would be desirable in the interest of justice to curtain litigation and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, in our view continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners in the aforesaid two petitions on the basis of complaint file by Balbir Kaur would amount to abuse of the process of the court.

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint filed against the petitioners in the aforesaid two petitions and consequent proceedings taken on the basis of the said complaint including the summoning order are directed to be quashed. Both the petitions are accordingly allowed.