Punjab-Haryana High Court
Varinder Khullar And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 11 November, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl. Misc. No. M-27878 of 2009 (O&M) -1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-27878 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 11.11.2013.
Varinder Khullar and another ........Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and another ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. S.C.Sibal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. V.S.Rana, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Deep Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Deepak Thapar, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
.....
SABINA, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR No. 20 dated 31.1.2009 under Section 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Rajpura City, District Patiala and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that son of the petitioners as well as their daughter- in-law were living in Canada. In fact, son of the petitioners and their daughter-in-law had settled their marriage in Canada but the ceremony was performed in Faridabad on 4.12.2007. Thereafter, the daughter-in-law of the petitioners left for Canada on 5.3.2008. Petitioners, who were residing in India, had been Singh Gurpreet 2013.11.13 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-27878 of 2009 (O&M) -2 - falsely involved in the criminal proceedings. Now daughter-in- law of the petitioners Mansi had got an ex-parte decree of divorce from the Court in India on 16.1.2012. Mansi had again got re-married and was presently residing in Canada. No cause of action had arisen in India.
Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, have opposed the petition and have submitted that cause of action had arisen in India as the offence in question had been committed in India.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that respondent No. 2 got married to Karan Khullar, son of the petitioners, in December 2007. Engagement ceremony of respondent No. 2 and Karan Khullar was performed in Canada on 16.9.2007. At that time, sufficient money and gold articles had been given by the parents of respondent No. 2 to the petitioners and their son. Sufficient money had been spent by the parents of respondent No. 2 at the time of her marriage and various articles were handed over to the petitioners. Respondent No. 2 was treated with cruelty by the petitioners. Karan Khullar demanded ` 10,00,000/- in cash from the parents of respondent No. 2 in the presence of the petitioners and also demanded that the parents of respondent No. 2 should arrange for a house in Canada for Karan Khullar. When the said demand was not met, severe beatings were given by the petitioners to respondent No. 2.
In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal,, 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:-
"The following categories of cases can be stated by Singh Gurpreet 2013.11.13 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-27878 of 2009 (O&M) -3 - way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:-
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No.2, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
Singh Gurpreet 2013.11.13 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-27878 of 2009 (O&M) -4 - (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Singh Gurpreet 2013.11.13 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-27878 of 2009 (O&M) -5 - court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." In the present case, respondent No. 2 was a permanent resident of Canada. Karan Khullar, son of the petitioners, had also gone to Canada on a study visa. Both of them decided to get married and the engagement ceremony was performed in Canada. Marriage ceremony of Karan Khullar and respondent No. 2 was performed in Faridabad on 4.12.2007. Thereafter, both respondent No. 2 and Karan Khullar left for Canada. Presently also both of them are residing in Canada. It appears that some dispute occurred between them in Canada which resulted in filing of a divorce petition by respondent No. 2. Admittedly, respondent No. 2 has got an ex-parte decree of divorce on 16.1.2012 from the Court at Patiala and she has got re-married. In the present case, Karan Khullar and respondent No. 2 lived in Canada after they got married. In case respondent No. 2 had been given beatings by the petitioners or her husband in India, she would not have taken her husband to Canada and would have made immediate efforts to seek cancellation of his sponsorship/immigration. It appears that some differences arose between the couple in Canada and the petitioners, who are residing in India, have been involved in the criminal litigation. It is normally seen that whenever a matrimonial discord occurs, the wife involves all the family members of her husband in Singh Gurpreet 2013.11.13 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-27878 of 2009 (O&M) -6 - criminal litigation. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears that petitioners have been involved in this case due to their relationship with Karan Khullar-husband of the complainant. Since respondent No. 2 has got re-married and has decided to move on in life, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would not serve any useful purpose.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 20 dated 31.1.2009 under Section 406, 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Rajpura City, District Patiala and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, qua the petitioners, are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE November 11, 2013 Gurpreet Singh Gurpreet 2013.11.13 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh