Harmeet Singh Vs. State - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- 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 limitation. thus,. in cases where the state or regional transport authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. - in these circumstances there are very bleak chances of success of the case.harmohinder kaur sandhu, j.1. harmeet singh has filed this petition under section 482 cr.p.c. for quashing of first information report no. 15 dated 18.2.1989 registered at police station ghagga annexure p-1 and order dated 23.1.1991 framing charge for offences under sections 406, 498a and 506 ipc.2. the brief facts giving rise to the filing of this petition are that petitioner was married to kamaljit kaur daughter of harpal singh respondent no. 2 in march, 1988. out of this wed lock a female child named jaskirat kaur was born in december 1980. some misunderstanding developed between the petitioner and his wife and she left her matrimonial home in march, 1988 and thereafter she did not return. her father lodged report annexure p-1 against the petitioner and another. the petitioner was charged in that case for the various offences referred above. he is facing trial since 1991 but the case had not made any remarkable headway and even the prosecution evidence had not been concluded.3. the petitioner alleged that he had entered into a compromise with respondent no. 2 and his daughter kamaljit kaur and they had decided to part company for ever and snap their matrimonial ties. respondent no. 2 and kamaljit kaur had sworn affidavits to the effect that they did not want to persue the criminal case arising out of the first information report annexure p-1 as they had already received dowry articles. since both the parties had settled their disputes amicably the continuation of proceedings in these circumstances were to hamper the process of normalistion of relations. although the offences under sections 498a and 506 i.p.c. were not compoundable yet the first information report was liable to be quashed as no useful purpose was to be served by continuing the proceedings.4. alongwith the petition copy of the compromise-deed annexure p-3 and affidavits of harpal singh and kamaljit kaur annexures p-4 and p-5 were produced. subsequently the petitioner also produced certified copy of the judgment dated 5.10.1993 passed by district judge, chandigarh in a petition under section 13b of the hindu marriage act presented by the petitioner and his wife kamaljit kaur, vide this judgment a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with kamaljit kaur was passed.5. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.6. it was conceded by learned counsel for respondent no. 2 that the petitioner had effected compromise with respondent no. 2 and his daughter and marriage of the petitioner with kamaljit kaur has been dissolved by a decree of divorce. compromise was effected by the respondent and his daughter of their free will and respondent no. 2 and kamaljit kaur did not want to persue the criminal case. a perusal of affidavits annexures p-4 and p-5 shows that kamaljit kaur had received all her dowry articles from the petitioner. marriage tie between the parties has been snapped and the respondent does not want to persue the criminal case against the petitioner. in these circumstances there are very bleak chances of success of the case. it will, therefore, be in the greater interest of justice if criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner are brought to an end by quashing the first information report.7. as a result i allow this petition and quash first information report no. 15 dated 18.2.1989 registered at police station, ghagga annexure p-1, order dated 23rd january, 1991 and subsequent proceedings taken in pursuance thereof.