GIANI HARJIT SINGH Vs. PARAMJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners seek quashing of complaint Annexure P-i filed by Smt. Param Jit Kaur under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. (for short the CodeT) on the ground that the complaint is a counter-blast to a petition filed by Hardeep Singh under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act) and is otherwise a tissue of lies and the assertions made therein are palpably false. The allegations in the complaint are hopelessly vague. There is no specific allegation as to what article was entrusted to which of the accused. There is also no allegation that either of the two lady petitioners joined the Barat.

(2.) Pursuance to notice issued by the Court, reply by way of affidavit has been filed by Smt. Paramjit Kaur denying the material averments made in the petition. It was denied that the complaint has been filed as a counterblast to the petition filed under Section 13 of the Act. Various averments made in the complaint were reiterated that behaviour of her husband as well as the petitioners in this petition who were joint in residence and mess was very cruel towards the respondent as they were not satisfied with the quantity and quality of the dowry. She was turned out of the house and all the five accused gave her beatings. Her jewellery and ornaments were kept by the accused. It is on the intervention of the respectable that the respondent joined her husband in June 1983 but since there was no change in the attitude of the accused, she was turned out again in December, 1985. On account of his grief, her father died in September, 1986. Once again, the respondent joined her husband in October, 1986, yet the attitude of the accused remained the same and on September 25, 1988, she was ultimately turned out. Her demand for return of Tstridhan was turned down. It was reiterated that all the accused were joint in residence and mess. It has further been stated that all the accused had misused the stridhan and the articles specifically given to them have been retained despite the demand. It was thus prayed that the petition be dismissed with costs.

(3.) The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the present complaint is a tissue of lies and has been filed as a counter-blast to Hardeep Singhs petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under Sec. 13 of the Act which was filed on 11-10-1988 whereas the present complaint is dated 9-2-1989. Since the matter in controversy is subject-matter of adjudication before the Civil Court, the present proceedings are liable to be stayed. Support was sought from Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act and the decision in case reported as Chander Kumar Sharma v. Smt. Shamirity Sharma. Elaborating the counsel urged that, as per Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act, any final judgment, order or decree passed by a Competent Court in exercise of its matrimonial jurisdiction is conclusive and so a decision on a petition under Sec. 13 of the Act would bind the party. Various aspects of the matter leading to the breakdown of marriage and claim with regard to dowry arts would be examined by the Court. Keeping this in view, Division Bench of this Court, in Chander Kumar Sharmas case (Supra) held as under: In this view of the matter, final judgment of a Competent Civil Court in exercise of matrimonial jurisdiction would be binding even in respect of matters other than dealing with the legal character, and marital status between the parties, regarding which specific issues have been framed, and, the parties have been given opportunity to lead evidence, and, specific findings are recorded by the Civil Court. In that eventuality, Criminal Courts cannot be permitted to reopen such findings, which would be binding between the parties before the Criminal Court. Query with regard to question No.1 is answered accordingly.