Parkash Singh Vs. Santosh Kaur

- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. if a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed by the state or regional transport authority should result in commencement of the period of..........was summoned to face trial under section 406 and 498a i.p.c. by sub-divisional judicial magistrate, kharar vide his order copy of which is annexure p/2. the complaint against sohan singh was dismissed. parkash singh filed the present petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure for quashing the complaint annexure p/1 and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the ground that the allegations made in the complaint did not reveal a prima facie case for the offences for which he was summoned. the allegations were false and motivated and the complaint was filed in order to harass him and other members of his family.2. during the pendency of this petition santosh kaur respondent moved a petition under section 13 of the hindu marriage act for a decree of divorce, where the parties effected compromise and petitioner consented to the dissolution of his marriage with santosh kaur by a decree of divorce.3. the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the parties had effected compromise and in divorce proceedings respondent had made a statement that she will not peruse the complaint annexure p/1. it was, therefore, urged that since the matter had been amicably settled by the parties and the respondent did not want to persue the complaint so it will be in the interest of justice that the complaint as well as the proceedings are quashed.4. the learned counsel for the respondent submitted a reply to the application filed by the petitioner whereby permission was sought to produce statements of the parties recorded in divorce proceedings and in this reply too it was admitted that the parties had effected compromise. the statement of santosh kaur recorded in a petition under section 13 of the hindu marriage act dated 21.8.1993 shows that she did not intend to peruse the complaint and she offered to withdraw the same.5. from the documents placed on record it is made out that the parties have effected compromise and the respondent is not to support the.....