IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Compromise Application No.861 of 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.669 OF 2010 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Surinder Singh …………Applicant Versus Smt. Kawal Preet Kaur & another …………Respondents Dated: August 6, 2010 Sri Pankaj Miglani, Adv. for the applicant Sri Tapan Singh, Adv. i/b Sri Lokpal Singh, Adv. for respondent no.1 Sri Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent no.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal application, preferred u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed for quashing the impugned order dated 05.7.2010 and the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No.1606 of 2010, State Vs. Surinder Singh Chawla, U/s 498-A/504 IPC, pending before JM (CBI) Dehradun. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no.1 lodged an FIR on 25.3.2010 with the averments that she was married with Amarpreet Singh (son of petitioner) on 25.12.2007 as per Sikh rituals and in the said marriage, her father and brother gave dowry beyond status as per the demand of her in-laws and about Rs.10.00 lacs were spent in the marriage and besides other articles were also given. For some time she stayed with her husband at Delhi and later she went to Australia along with her husband and brother in law (Jeth) and sister in law (Jethani). In Australia she kept under locks for three months by the brother in law and sister in law where her husband and her brother in law and sister in law used to demand dowry from her and also used to maltreat her. It was also stated that for some time after marriage, everything was normal but after that the behaviour of her in-laws got suddenly changed and even her husband was came out to be a cruel person who used to hurl abuses to her and also commit cruelty upon her in which her in-laws also used to support her husband. Her mother in law Smt. Preetpal Kaur Chawla used to taunt her for bringing lesser dowry and whenever she resisted to it, she was subjected to cruelty. On 22.2.2009 her husband forcefully dragged her out from room and asked her to get the pregnancy test. It was also stated that on 23.2.2009, her husband sent her back to India along with her brother in law and sister in law and even her ornaments and valuables were kept there in Australia and the money earned by her in Australia was also kept by her husband. After reaching India when she contracted to her father in law and mother in law, they intentionally insulted her and directed her to make arrangements at her own. On 24.2.2009, when the complainant’s parents came at her in-laws house, they refused to keep the complainant at her house. It was stated that her in-laws have committed extreme cruelty and inhuman behaviour was committed with her. Her articles given in dowry and her Stridhan was also kept by her in- laws. With the same averments the FIR was lodged. After that the matter was investigated and the I.O. recorded the statements of witnesses and after completing the investigation, the I.O. filed the charge sheet against the petitioner and co-accused u/s 498-A/504 IPC on the basis of which the learned J.M. (CBI) Dehradun vide order dated 5.7.2010 took cognizance and summoned the petitioner u/s 498-A/504 IPC. Hence this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that no offence is made out against him and the court below has wrongly summoned him. I do not find any force in this argument for the reason that on a perusal of the FIR lodged by the respondent no.1 in which it was stated that she was subjected to cruelty by the petitioner and co-accused for demand of dowry and that due to non-fulfillment of this demand, she was intentionally been insulted, as well as also on the basis of the statements of complainant Kawal Preet Kaur and that of witnesses, namely, Manmohan Singh Bedi, Smt. Arvind Kaur, Avtar Singh and others, recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., I find that the offences punishable u/s 498-A/504 IPC are prima facie made out against the petitioner on the basis of the above-said discussion and the trial court has accordingly rightly proceed to summon the petitioner u/s 498-A/504 IPC. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as that of the accused and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court would not ordinarily embark upon the enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial court. If the allegations made in the FIR as well as the statements of witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioner has rightly been summoned by the trial court. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. I am of the view that in the present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of court. Now coming to the compromise application filed by the parties bearing No.861 of 2010. The parties are present in person before the Court. In the said compromise it is stated that the dispute is a matrimonial dispute, which has now been compromised and now the respondent/wife does not want to prosecute the criminal case pending against the applicant and his family members. In paragraph 11 of the affidavit filed in support of application, it is stated that the respondent has agreed to receive Rs.5.50 lacs through demand draft dated 20.7.2010 of Punjab & Sind Bank, New Dehli towards marriage expenses and full and final settlement. It is also stated that the original draft shall be given by the applicant to the respondent before the Hon’ble Court. The Court in order to verify the veracity of the compromise arrived at between the parties, called the complainant/respondent Smt. Kawal Preet Kaur and enquired from her as to whether she has received the said Demand Draft in the Court. In reply to the said query, the said respondent replied that she did not receive any such draft. Even on being directed to the petitioner’s counsel, he did not produce the draft rather he replied that the draft will be given later on. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case that when the main condition written in paragraph 11, on the basis of which the compromise has been entered between the parties, remains un-fulfilled, the Court is of the view that the compromise deserves to be rejected outrightly. Accordingly, the said compromise application is rejected inasmuch as the same is misconceived. In light of the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case, there is no force in this petition. The C482 petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) August 6, 2010 Rdang