Punjab-Haryana High Court
Randhir Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 24 July, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Criminal Misc. No.M-17057 of 2011 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No.M-17057 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: 24.7.2013
Randhir Singh and others
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.H.S.Bhullar, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Ms.Harsimrat Rai, DAG, Punjab.
Mr.Manpreet Singh, Advocate for
Mr.S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.93 dated 23.4.2009 under Section 406/ 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) registered at Police station Jagron and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No.2 Gurdeep Singh had got married to respondent No.2 Baljinder Kaur on 18.2.2007 at Jagron. Both of them had come from Canada for the purposes of marriage. Thereafter the marriage of petitioner No.2 and respondent No.2 was registered in Canada on Devi Anita 2013.07.26 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-17057 of 2011 (O&M) 2 29.8.2007 (Annexure P-3). Petitioner No.2 and respondent No.2 had got a decree of divorce in Canada on 20.5.2010 (Annexure P-8). Petitioner No.1 came to India to attend some family function. Respondent No.2, on coming to know about the said fact also came to India and lodged the FIR in question. Cancellation report had been prepared by the Investigating Officer as no offence could be said to have been committed in India.
Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, have opposed the petition.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed.
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 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 Devi Anita report or the complainant/respondent No.2, even if they 2013.07.26 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-17057 of 2011 (O&M) 3 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. (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 Devi Anita (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the 2013.07.26 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-17057 of 2011 (O&M) 4 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 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, admittedly, petitioner No.2 Gurdeep Singh and respondent No.2 Baljinder Kaur had got married on 18.2.2007 at Jagron. Both of them had come from Canada for the purpose of their marriage. Thereafter, their marriage was duly registered in Canada on 29.8.2007 (Annexure P-3). Gurdeep Singh and Baljinder Kaur had a decree of divorce in Canada on 22.5.2010 (Annexure P-8).
Devi Anita
Thus, it is evident that Gurdeep Singh and Baljinder Kaur 2013.07.26 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-17057 of 2011 (O&M) 5 were residing in Canada and had come to India for the purposes of their marriage. After marriage, both of them returned to Canada. Apparently, some matrimonial dispute arose between them and consequently, have got a decree of divorce vide Annexure P-8. Entire cause of action, if any, can thus be said to have arisen at Canada. Hence, criminal proceedings initiated in India are nothing but an abuse of process of law.
Petitioner No.1 Randhir Singh and petitioner No.2 Gurdeep Singh are residing in Canada and respondent No.2 is also presently residing in India. Petitioner No.3, sister of petitioner No.2, and her husband are facing criminal Proceedings in India as they are residing in Ludhiana In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.93 dated 23.4.2009 under Section 406/ 498-A IPC registered at Police station Jagron and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE July 24, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.07.26 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh