Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parminder Jeet Kaur & Ors vs Geeta Rani on 9 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049654
1
CRM-M-54650-2018 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:049654
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.54650 of 2018 (O&M)
Date of Reserve: 06.03.2024
Date of Decision: 09.04.2024
PARMINDER JEET KAUR AND OTHERS
......Petitioner(s)
Vs
GEETA RANI
....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Chirag Kundu, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Narender Kaajla, Advocate
for the respondent.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
[1]. By way of present petition filed under 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C") petitioners prayed for
quashing of CIS No.COMI 25/2015 Criminal Complaint No.12-I dated
14.01.2015 under Sections 500 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred to as "IPC"), summoning Order dated 07.11.2017 as well as Order dated
02.11.2018 dismissing the Revision against the aforesaid summoning Order
alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
[2]. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner no. 1 got registered an FIR
no. 117 dated 05.02.2013 under Sections 328, 366, 376, 420, 493, 496, 506 and 34
of IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, District Hisar against respondent, Geeta Rani,
and others with the allegations of administering some intoxicant in food and
solemnizing the marriage of petitioner no. 1 against her wishes with the brother of
respondent, Rajbir on 29.04.2011 and clicking compromising photographs in order
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049654
CRM-M-54650-2018 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:049654
to blackmail her. Thereafter on account of a compromise arrived at between the
parties, petitioner No.1 resiled and as a consequence thereof, the respondent and
others were acquitted in the said case. Thereafter, respondent in order to settle
scores with the petitioners lodged criminal Complaint no. 12-I dated 14.01.2015
under Sections 500 and 120-B of IPC before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hisar
(hereinafter referred to as "JMIC") wherein the petitioners were summoned to face
trial vide Order dated 07.11.2017. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioners
preferred Criminal Revision which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as "Revisional Court") vide Order dated
02.11.2018.
[3]. Impugning the aforesaid orders, learned Counsel for the petitioners
submitted that present case is merely an offshoot of matrimonial discord between
petitioner no. 1 and brother of respondent, Rajbir. He then submitted that based on
compromise between the concerned parties, petitioner no. 1 resiled from her
statement in the case arising out of aforementioned FIR no. 117 dated 05.02.2013
and thus respondent alongwith others was acquitted. He further submitted that
having compromised the matter, subsequent filing of impugned Complaint dated
14.01.2015 by the respondent was misuse of process of law and an attempt to
harass the petitioners. He also submitted that respondent concealed the factum of
compromise while filing the aforesaid Complaint and thus the impugned orders
were liable to be set aside. Lastly he submitted that Respondent did not file any
reply to the present petition thereby admitting the factual aspects and, thus, the
same be allowed.
[4]. Conversely, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that
petitioners used to harass the respondent and falsely implicated her in FIR no 117
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049654
CRM-M-54650-2018 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:049654
dated 05.02.2013, wherein during trial petitioner no. 1 admitted that she had
lodged a false case. He further submitted that learned JMIC rightly appreciated the
facts of the case and summoned the petitioners to face trial under Sections 500 and
120-B of IPC and that the Revisional Court committed no illegality while
upholding the same, warranting no interference.
[5]. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the
paper-book, I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners.
[6]. A careful examination of the records pertaining to the present case
show that a compromise was entered into between the parties in a matrimonial
dispute relating respondent and brother of petitioner No.1, Rajbir, vide which their
marriage was dissolved with mutual consent under Section 13-B of The Hindu
Marriage Act. As an effect of the said compromise, petitioner No.1 did not support
prosecution in case arising out of FIR No.117 (supra) so as to put at rest, the
entire dispute, especially in the interest of both the parties and resultantly the
respondent was acquitted vide judgment dated 11.12.2014. Subsequent to her
acquittal, and also having derived benefit out of settlement, the respondent filed
criminal Complaint No.12-I dated 14.01.2015 while concealing the factum of
compromise between both the parties. The fact that respondent did not opt to file
reply to the present petition; itself reflects that she accepted the contentions raised
by the petitioners and was not in a position to deny or dispute the factum of
compromise and the benefit derived under the same. It is more than evident that in
the present facts, respondent lodged the complaint against petitioners in order to
settle scores and harass them. After the matrimonial dispute having compromised
between both the families there does not appear to be a prima-facie case against
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049654
CRM-M-54650-2018 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:049654
the petitioners and re-agitation the same is apparently mala fide besides the same
being an abuse of process of law and, thus, the same cannot be allowed.
[7]. A co-ordinate bench of this Court in case of Kamlesh Kaur vs
Lakhwinder Singh, 2009(4) R.C.R (Criminal) 663, has even gone on to hold that
after having been discharged in a case, the respondent therein cannot claim to have
been defamed by the petitioner by lodging false case. Relevant excerpts are
reproduced hereunder: -
"8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on
the judgment of this Court in the case of Jit Singh v. Baljit Kaur,
1999(3) RCR (Criminal) 406 to contend that the complaint,
summoning order as well as the subsequent proceedings are nothing
but misuse of the process of the Court. This Court in Jit Singh's case
(supra) has been pleased to lay down as Under :-
"3. After considering rival contentions raised by the
learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered
opinion that the complaint was nothing but an abuse
of the process of law as Smt. Baljit Kaur wanted to
wreck vengeance against Jit Singh on account of her
unsuccessful result which has culminated on account
of the decision by the Matrimonial Court who passed
decree of divorce in favout of Jit Singh against his wife
Baljit Kaur. A close reading of the findings on issue
No. 1 only suggests that this issue remained
unsubstantiated for want of proper evidence. There is
no finding given by the Matrimonial Court to the effect
that the allegations of adultery levelled by Jit Singh
are false and frivolous to his knowledge and that those
have been levelled in the petition under Section 13 of
the Hindu Marriage Act in connivance with Gurjant
Singh or other witnesses. Moreover, the Judgment
passed by the Matrimonial Court has become final and
it was never challenged by Baljit Kaur. Otherwise also
as per Section 340 Criminal Procedure Code it was
obligatory on the part of Baljit Kaur making prayer for
prosecution of the petitioners under
Section 340 Criminal Procedure Code for filing
complaint for the offence under Section 193 Indian
Penal Code. Since there is no finding on the part of the
Civil Court that Jit Singh and others had committed
any defamation against Smt. Baljit Kaur in connivance
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049654
CRM-M-54650-2018 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:049654
with Gurjant Singh other petitioners. The complaint
filed by Baljit Kaur was nothing but to wreck
vengeance and it has been moved with mala
fide intention. In view of the findings given by the
Hob'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Singh, 1991(1) RCR (Criminal) 383 : AIR 1992
Supreme Court 604 it becomes necessary for this
Court to invoke power under Section 482 Criminal
Procedure Code as sufficient ground has been made to
quash the complaint and the summoning order.
Resultantly, both the petitions are hereby allowed and
the complaint and the summoning order stand quashed
and directions are given to the Trial Court to not
prosecute the petitioners."
12. Neither the petitioner has published nor defamed the
complainant in public eye but the petitioner made a complaint to the
Police. The complaint made would be protected under Eighth
Exception to Section 499 Indian Penal Code.
Even otherwise, the petitioner was prosecuted under
Section 182 Indian Penal Code and stood discharged, her trial on
the sane allegations by way of present complaint would be nothing
but misuse of the process of the Court and would be hit by principle
of double jeopardy. The continuation of the present proceedings are,
therefore, misuse of the process of the Court."
[8]. In view of the discussion made herein above, present petition is
allowed and CIS No.COMI 25/2015 Criminal Complaint No.12-I dated 14.01.2015
under Sections 500 and 120-B of IPC, summoning order dated 07.11.2017 as well
as order dated 02.11.2018 dismissing Revision against the same along with all
consequential proceedings arising thereof are hereby quashed.
[9]. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
(HARKESH MANUJA)
April 09, 2024 JUDGE
Atik
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
