High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/40551/2018allowed

Rajni Bhasin And ORS v. State Of Punjab And ANR

2024-11-129 pages

!$%&%"'( )) *'%

+&%'

', " +!-& )) ! % %"'!-& .&) / !

"# 0'*1 ', '" +!-

))!&2"',!' & ( 3 4 ) /

/ 4

Present:

Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate with Mr. Anmol Partap Singh Mann, Advocate and Mr. Navjot Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yuvraj Singh Tiwana, Asstt. A.G., Punjab. Mr. Jatinder Kumar Kansal, Advocate for Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2. ...

/ 4

) 1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioners for quashing of criminal complaint dated 30.08.2013 (Annexure P35) pending in the Court of Ld. CJM, Jalandhar, Punjab, summoning order dated 10.06.2015 (Annexure P3

14) passed therein as also order dated 21.08.2018 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalandhar whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners (herein) against the summoning order has been dismissed. 2.

The complaint in question has been filed by respondent No.2 (herein), who is the mother of the aggrieved3wife in question. The allegations in the criminal complaint primarily relate to the allegations of

harassment on account of dowry and istridhan related criminal breach of trust Learned counsel for the petitioners has primarily placed reliance on the fatum of a decree of divorce having been passed between the petitioner3husband and aggrieved3wife (Sumita Chopra) by a Circuit Court in Virginia, USA on 05.06.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that, as per the said final decree of divorce passed by the Court in USA, nothing survives between the parties & hence the respondent No.2 (herein) ought to have withdrawn the criminal prosecution in all fairness. The relevant of the abovesaid final decree of divorce reads as under: "

Notice of motion of the instant petition was issued whereupon respondent No.2 has entered appearance through counsel and has opposed the petition. At this juncture, it would be worth noticing that respondent No.13State of Punjab is not really a contesting respondent as the petition in hand emanates from a private criminal complaint. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the entire dispute(s) between the petitioner3husband and aggrieved3wife was amicably settled and the petitioner3husband has fulfilled, in entirety, the requirements/conditions on his part as per the final decree of divorce passed by the Court in USA. It has been further submitted that the aggrieved3wife has received from the petitioner3husband a total sum of about Rs.45 lacs. Learned counsel for the petitioners has thus argued that, respondent No.2 (herein) who is the mother of the aggrieved3wife is now intentionally not

withdrawing the criminal prosecution only with a view to harass the petitioners as also to prolong the litigation. Thus, it has been iterated that the criminal complaint in question, summoning order passed therein, order passed by the Sessions Court dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioners as also all proceedings emanating therefrom deserve to be quashed.

Learned State counsel has submitted that since the matter in hand essentially emanates from a private criminal complaint, the State is not really a contesting party.

Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that a perusal of the final decree of divorce dated 05.06.2015 passed by the USA Court would reflect that parties thereto i.e. the husband and wife in question had settled all matters of property and custody only whereas the criminal complaint in question relates to dowry harassment etc. having been meted out to the aggrieved3wife & hence the same cannot be considered as having any binding effect on respondent No.2/aggrieved3wife. It has been further iterated that there is sufficient material to indicate the culpability of the petitioners3accused & hence dismissal of the petition in hand has been sought for.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of this Court passed in

titled as

, decided on 29.04.2024; relevant whereof reads as under:3 !" #

$%"&' ()* +%",

$.()*

* / #

$%"&'()*

2 1 3

7 *

8 * -

$"9 * )* +%:,

"+(

;(< =

= 82 # *

< ' ># -

(

8 * -

$"9* )* = ;(<

82 # * < ' >#

8 * #

$"9* )*+%:,

8 *

$"9* )*

; - -

8 *

= *

",82 # * >' -

= ;(<

(

' 8 * -

$"9* )*+%:, !

- !

% '

@ (

(;(<

= &

;(<

( 1 4 &

4 4

;

(((

1 4

8 *

$"9* )*+%:,

((( 6

= 6

8 * -

$"9 * )* +%:,

As per the case pleaded by the petitioners, the entire dispute between the petitioner3husband and aggrieved3wife had been decided upon & a decree of divorce dated 05.06.2015 was passed by a Court in USA. It, accordingly, is indubitable that no cause of action survives with the respondent No.23herein (who is the mother of the aggrieved3wife) to continue with the prosecution of the criminal complaint in question. 10.

At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment titled as

!"#$ %&"# '()*, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

! "

# "

% &' (

)*+

& %

& )*+

)*+- &

)*+-

* %

& &

. %

! "

(

/0 10.1 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

! case (supra) has held that in case of vexatious or malicious proceedings, the High Court is saddled with a bounden duty to look into the attending circumstances as also can even go on to read between the lines, while considering a plea for quashing of an FIR (as also all proceedings arising therefrom). It is hence ineluctable that ends of justice are higher than ends of mere law though justice ought to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. Accordingly; the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. of 1973; can even well "read between the lines" as also examine the "attending circumstances" in a case if its facts/circumstances so warrant.

10.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the celebrated judgment of ' +, -!

./0/!

! 0 123 has extensively dealt with the issue of deliberate and rampant misuse of provisions of Section 4983A of IPC as a tool of harassment by a disgruntled wife. The Courts are flooded with cases where it is found that

the complainant3wife has misused the provision of Section 4983A of IPC to settle score(s) with her husband and his family members, but at the same time it cannot be ignored that in very many cases such allegations of dowry harassment made by the wife turn out to be true. This Court cannot also lose sight of growing lack of a family level/Social Forum for redressal of grievance(s) of a wife arising out of matrimonial acrimony and therefore criminal proceedings under Section 4983A of IPC are launched at the instance of such wife on her being left with no other alternative redressal forum. Therefore, in many cases, the wife tends to initiate criminal proceedings under Section 4983A of IPC against her husband as also his relatives as a means of a solution seeking redressal mechanism. In other words, in large number of cases, the criminal prosecution under Section 4983A of IPC at the instance of a disgruntled wife are launched for settlement of the matrimonial discord in one way or the other. 11.

The factual matrix of case in hand, clearly reflects that the continuation of proceedings = the impugned criminal complaint is nothing but sheer abuse of process of law and Courts. Nothing except harassment would be caused to the petitioners in case the proceedings in pursuance of the impugned criminal complaint are permitted to continue. The complaint, in question, has been instituted by mother of the aggrieved3 wife and no explanation sufficient explanation has been brought forth as to why the aggrieved3wife has not herself stepped forward to initiate and pursue the criminal proceedings in question. The allegations, forming basis of impugned criminal complaint and summoning orders against the petitioners, predominantly related to the Istridhan of wife being subject

matter of offence under Section 406 of IPC which are indubitably deemed to have settled by way of divorce decree passed by the USA Court. 12.

This Court, especially while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. of 1973, cannot be expected to turn 6 2

to the vexatious and virulent attempt(s) by unscrupulous elements in misusing the process of law in Courts. Hence, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the impugned criminal complaint (as also the proceedings emanating therefrom) are quashed. 12.1 Before parting with this judgment, it is pertinent to note that the conduct of respondent No.2 is inexplicable in terms of . Any attempt to misuse the process of law/Courts ought to be detested. The feeling of rancor or bitterness cannot be permitted to be genesis for procrastinating the culmination of legal proceedings especially when settlement/compromise has been arrived at between the rival parties. Abhorrence of such attempt(s) is pertinent. Ergo, the respondent No.2 deserves to be saddled with costs, which essentially ought to be in the nature of veritable real time costs.

13.

In view of the above, it is directed as follows: (i) The criminal complaint dated 30.08.2013 (Annexure P35) pending in the Court of Ld. CJM, Jalandhar, Punjab, summoning order dated 10.06.2015 (Annexure P314) passed therein and the order dated 21.08.2018 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioners as also all proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

(ii) The respondent No.2 is saddled with costs of Rs 25,000/3 which shall be deposited by her with Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Jalandhar

within four weeks from today. In case such costs are deposited; CJM, Jalandhar shall have the same remitted to State Legal Services Authority, Mohali, Punjab. In case, the said costs are not deposited by respondent No.2 as directed for; the CJM, Jalandhar is directed to intimate the Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar who shall have such costs recovered from respondent No 2 by all lawful means including as arrears of land revenue and upon realization thereof, the Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar shall have the same submitted to CJM, Jalandhar, for further remittance thereof to State Legal Services Authority, Mohali, Punjab. A compliance report be sent by CJM, Jalandhar as also Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar to this Court accordingly.

(iii) Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this judgment to respondent No.2; CJM, Jalandhar as also Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar for requisite compliance.

))

/ 4

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes No Whether reportable Yes No