Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdeep Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 28 February, 2011
Crl. Misc. No.M-52015 of 2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No.M-52015 of 2007
Date of Decision: 28.02.2011
Gurdeep Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present:- Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G., Punjab
for the respondent-State.
*****
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be
allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest ?
**
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR No.187 dated 05.08.2006 under Sections 406, 506, 323, 34 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Dharamkot, District Moga and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
The facts, in short, are that the petitioner left India for America on 16.09.1996 and since then, he has not returned back to India. The brother of the petitioner, namely, Pipal Singh was married with respondent No.2 and this marriage took place way back in the year 1987. The brother of the petitioner and the complainant had no issue from their marriage and the brother of the petitioner expired in 2004. The petitioner could not attend the death ceremonies of his brother as he was in America. Meanwhile, Bagicha Singh, the father of the petitioner died on 19.05.2006. The present Crl. Misc. No.M-52015 of 2007 2 FIR was registered thereafter. In the FIR, the allegations of demand of dowry, misappropriation of dowry articles and allegations were made against the father of the petitioner i.e the father-in-law of respondent No.2 that he was keeping bad eye on her.
While praying for quashing of the FIR, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the name of the petitioner does not find figure in the FIR. The allegations, on the face of it, are incorrect as the brother of the petitioner i.e the husband of the complainant died in year 2004 and the father of the petitioner died on 19.05.2006, whereas, the FIR was registered thereafter on 05.08.2006. Moreover, at the time of marriage i.e in the year 1987, Punjab State was passing through "Blue Star Crises" and at that time, militants strictly enforced the rule of 11 baraties in the barat and out of fear, nobody dared to take more than 11 persons in the barat party. As such, the marriage was simple.
It is further stated that the State, too, had filed an application to discharge the petitioner but since he was declared proclaimed offender, the application for discharge was dismissed.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 appeared on 07.10.2009 and prayed for three weeks' time to file reply. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned time and again, but no reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also not been appearing for the last number of hearings. Today also, no one is present on behalf of respondent No.2. It is, therefore, apparent that respondent No.2 is not interested in defending the present petition.
It is not disputed that the present petitioner had left the Country in the year 1996. The enquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Detective) Moga was placed on record. As per the Enquiry report prepared by Jaspal Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Detective) Moga, this Court noted in its order dated 15.01.2009 Crl. Misc. No.M-52015 of 2007 3 that the same did not refer to any evidence that would suggest that the petitioner, who is admittedly living in America, has committed an offence. The following order was passed on 24.02.2009 :-
" The enquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Detective), Moga, does not refer to any evidence that would suggest the commission of an offence by the petitioner. It would also be necessary to mention here that the petitioner is an American citizen, who has not visited this country since the year 1996 and the incident referred to in the FIR relates to a period thereafter. The petitioner, however, has been declared a proclaimed offender.
Shri Jaspal Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Detective), Moga now Deputy Superintendent of Police, Head Quarter, Mansa, is present in Court and prays for time to file an affidavit. He is directed to be present in person on the next date of hearing.
Adjourned to 04.03.2009."
In pursuance to the said order, Jaspal Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Detective) Moga has filed his affidavit dated 28.03.2009. As per the said affidavit, there was truth in the allegations levelled by Harjinder Kaur against Sukhwinder Singh and Harpreet Singh but no involvement of Gurdeep Slingh came into picture.
Mr. K.S. Pannu, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from Head Constable-Jaswant Singh does not dispute that subsequently an application was filed by SHO, Police Station Dharamkot for discharging the petitioner-Gurdeep Singh.
From the above facts, it is clear that ;
(a) The petitioner had left India in the year 1996.
(b) The husband of respondent No.2 died in the year 2004.
Crl. Misc. No.M-52015 of 2007 4
(c) The father-in-law of respondent No.2 i.e the father of the petitioner also died in the year 2006.
(d) As per the investigation conducted by Gurmit Singh, DSP (D), Moga, the petitioner was found innocent.
(e) Application to discharge the petitioner was also moved by the SHO, Police Station, Dharamkot.
(f) Learned counsel for the respondent-State has placed on record the order dated 02.09.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga, vide which, the application for discharge was dismissed only on the ground that the petitioner was proclaimed offender.
In view of the above facts, it is evident that the petitioner was never named in the FIR. He has been found innocent. He was never in India. Both the other co-accused have since died. Thus, the petitioner cannot be connected with the allegations at all. Thus, to allow the proceedings against the petitioner to continue just because he was declared proclaimed offender, would be highly unfair, unjust and arbitrarily, especially when, he has been found innocent by the Investigating Agency and admittedly, he was not even in India when the FIR was lodged against him or when he was declared a proclaimed offender. Thus, he cannot be connected with the allegations in the FIR under any circumstances. The respondent No.2/complainant, too, has not come forward to contest the present petition.
In view of the above, the pendency of the present proceedings Crl. Misc. No.M-52015 of 2007 5 is a misuse of process of law and, therefore, deserve to be quashed.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the FIR No.187 dated 05.08.2006 under Sections 406, 506, 323, 34 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Dharamkot, District Moga and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are, hereby, quashed.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR) 28.02.2011 JUDGE gurpreet