IMPORTANT POINTS
Discharge is not acquittal in terms of section 300 CrPC.
Section 494 IPC is compoundable u/s 320 Cr PC.

Judgment

J.S. Khehar, J.

The appellant (Ravinder Kaur) and the respondent (Anil Kumar) got married on 14.08.1991. Soon thereafter, the respondent preferred a petition seeking divorce from the appellant before the Additional District Judge, Ropar. Having received summons in the above-mentioned case, the appellant entered appearance before the Additional District Judge, Ropar, on 08.10.1992. On the following day, i.e., on 09.10.1992, the respondent withdrew the petition filed by him under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. The respondent filed a second divorce petition on 30.04.1993, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the same factual premise and grounds (as the earlier petition), before the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. Proceedings were conducted in the second divorce petition, in the absence of the appellant, and an ex-parte decree of divorce was granted to the respondent, on 08.01.1994. It was the case of the appellant before this Court, that the respondent did not inform her, that the matrimonial ties between the parties had come to an end, by the decree of divorce dated 08.01.1994. And under the impression, that the marriage was subsisting, he continued his conjugal relationship with the appellant, as her husband, by deception.

3. It was also the case of the appellant, that on 23.06.1994 the respondent married Sunita Rani. It was, thereupon, that the appellant became aware (on 23.06.1994 i.e., on the occasion of his marriage with Sunita Rani) about the fact, that the respondent had been granted an ex-parte decree of divorce on 08.01.1994 (by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh). Within six days, of her coming to know, about the above ex-parte decree of divorce, the appellant preferred an application, for setting aside the said ex-parte decree, on 29.06.1994. The same was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, on 19.02.1996. In sum and substance, therefore, the matrimonial ties between the appellant and the respondent came to be restored, as if the marital relationship had never ceased.

4. Based on the fact, that the respondent had continued the sexual relationship with the appellant, for the period from 08.01.1994 (when the ex-parte decree of divorce was passed) till he married Sunita Rani on 23.06.1994, the appellant preferred a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kharar, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It is not a matter of dispute, that the respondent was discharged from the above proceedings. In fact, no trial came to be conducted in furtherance of the above complaint made by the appellant. The above order of discharge, was assailed by the appellant, before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the High Court'). The High Court affirmed the order of discharge, on 10.07.1997. Dissatisfied with the order of discharge, as also, the order passed by the High Court, the appellant approached this Court. This Court declined to interfere with the above orders.

5. On the same factual premise, as has been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs (wherein the appellant had filed a complaint for initiation of proceedings under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code), the appellant filed a second complaint, this time accusing the respondent of offences under Sections 493, 494, 495, 496, 420, 506 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kharar, did not entertain the aforementioned complaint filed by the appellant, and dismissed the same vide an order dated 27.11.2002. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the appellant preferred a revision petition, assailing the above order dated 27.11.2002, before the Sessions Judge, Roopnanagr. The aforesaid revision petition was dismissed on 04.09.2003. The order dated 04.09.2003 was assailed by the appellant before the High Court, through Criminal Misc.No.50496-M of 2003. The aforesaid Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, was dismissed by th