The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of encouraging genuine settlements in matrimonial disputes and the court's power to quash criminal proceedings based on such settlements.

Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.

The revisionist-petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh vide judgment and order dated 14.8.2012. However, the petitioner was acquitted of the charge under Section 406 I.P.C by the trial Court. Against the said judgment of conviction and order of awarding sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court, Chandigarh, who vide judgment dated 30.10.2014 while dismissing the appeal upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

2. A few facts necessary for adjudication of the instant revision petition may be noticed. Complainant Anita Rani made a complaint dated 25.11.2005 to the Police of Police Station, Sector 3, Chandigarh against Sartaj Rana (petitioner herein), Smt. Hardai, Smt. Kushal and Vijay Laxmi with the allegations that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnised on 18.10.1996 at Chandigarh according to Hindu rites and her parents had spent approximately Rs. 6 lakhs on her marriage and also incurred expenses on other dowry articles. After the marriage, the said persons started taunting her and raised a demand of kothi at Chandigarh and a Government job for the petitioner. On 20.8.1997, a girl child was born by way of cesarean operation and she remained in the hospital but neither her husband nor her in-laws came to Chandigarh to see the child despite the information given to them. In the year 1998, when the petitioner left Sarabhai and joined Inter Set Vet at Hisar, he never came to Chandigarh from 1998 to 2001 and also dropped her calls and when he had a talk with her on telephone, he always repeated the demands of Kothi at Chandigarh. On coming to know that the demise of Neeraj, the cousin brother of the petitioner, the complainant went to village Ucha Pind Sanghol and remained there for 14 days. During the stay, she had to accept abuses and filthy language and taunting every day. Despite the death of her father-in-law in April, 1997, her husband repeated the same demand time and again, but she tolerated everything just for the sake of her daughter with the hope that the things would improve by the passage of time. Further, when she called the petitioner to join her for few days to get their child admitted in the school as the parents were required for interview, he flatly refused to do so. In the year 2004, when her mother-in-law was to be operated at Ahuja Hospital, she stayed there for five days for her help and her mother-in-law was very happy over her services but she immediately got changed and started taunting her at the instance of her sister-in-law and the wife of brother of her husband. When the engagement of her brother was done and the marriage was fixed for 21.1.2005, her husband was invited but he flatly refused to attend the same. On 5.11.2005, the petitioner called her on telephone and used filthy language and threatened to ruin her life and her parents. On the basis of the said complaint, F.I.R No. 8 dated 9.1.2006, under Sections 406/498-A I.P.C, at Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh was registered. The petitioner was arrested and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, the challan was presented against the petitioner under Sections 406/498-A I.P.C in the trial Court. The petitioner was charge sheeted for the offences under Sections 406/498-A I.P.C to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses, namely, PW1 Constable Surjit Singh, PW2 complainant-Anita Rani, PW3 Jaina Nath Lambardar of v