JASWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by Jaswant Singh and others under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the First Information Report dated 23.3.1996. It pertains to offences punishable under Sections 494 and 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station B Division, Amritsar.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that on 7.4.1985 respondent No. 2 was married to Jaswant Singh petitioner No. 1. They started living together. The petitioners contend that respondent No. 2 had deserted petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of mental cruelty. The petition was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar on 6.4.1990. In the meantime, respondent No. 2 had filed a criminal complaint under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The learned Judicial Magistrate had summoned the petitioners for the offence punishable under section 406 IPC. The petitioners filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the said complaint. The same was allowed qua petitioners 2 and 3 by this Court on 28.1.1991. Later on respondent No. 2 had withdrawn the complaint. Against the judgment and the decree passed for divorce, respondent No. 2 had preferred an appeal in this Court. The appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge was set aside.

(3.) IN the reply filed the State contested the petition. There is no dispute that earlier complaint filed by respondent No. 2 had been quashed qua petitioners 2 and 3. But it is contended that as per the allegations made, offence under Section 498-A IPC is drawn. The challan has been presented in Court. A date has been fixed for consideration of the charge. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the time of arguments read the First Information Report presently recorded to urge that no case is drawn against the petitioners. He highlighted the fact that earlier complaint had been filed. Petitioners had approached this Court and the petition had been allowed by this Court as against Jagtar Singh and Kulwant Kaur. According to him a fresh complaint was not maintainable. On the contrary learned counsel for respondent No. 2 highlighted the fact that after the earlier complaint had partly been quashed in favour of some of the petitioners, petitioner No. 1 had lived with respondent No. 2. Thereafter for subsequent events, the First Information Report could be recorded.