Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Kaur And Others vs Darbara Singh on 30 August, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CRM No.M-8928 of 2008 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(224)
CRM No.M-8928 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision: 30.08.2013.
Manjit Kaur and others
......Petitioners
Versus
Darbara Singh
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. R.S. Bains, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate for the respondent.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the complaint dated 12.06.2006 (Annexure P-4) titled "Darbara Singh Vs. Paramjit Singh & Others" and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 21.09.2007 (Annexure P-7).
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Paramjit Singh had got married to Davinder Kaur, daughter of the respondent on 19.03.1995. Thereafter, Davinder Kaur and Paramjit Singh started residing in Canada. A decree of divorce was Sandeep Sethi 2013.09.03 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No.M-8928 of 2008 (O&M) -2- passed on 31.08.2006 by the Supreme Court of British Columbia and marriage of Davinder Kaur with Paramjit Singh was ordered to be dissolved. Thereafter, Paramjit Singh got married to petitioner No.1 Manjit Kaur. Petitioners were not disclosed the factum of earlier marriage of Parmjit Singh with Davinder Kaur. In any case, at the time of marriage of petitioner No.1-Manjit Kaur with Paramjit Singh, the first marriage of Paramjit Singh with Davinder Kaur had already been dissolved vide Anneuxre P-1. Hence, no offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') could be said to have been committed by the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that Paramjit Singh had performed marriage with Manjit Kaur during the subsistence of his first marriage. Petitioners were also aware of the factum of first marriage of Paramjit Singh with Davinder Kaur and had, thus, committed offence punishable under Section 494 IPC. Learned counsel has further stated that marriage certificate (Annexure P-2) is forged one.
Case of the complainant, as per the complaint (Annexure P-4), in brief, is that Davinder Kaur, daughter of the complainant got married to Paramjit Singh on 19.03.1995. The said marriage had not been dissolved so far. Davinder Kaur and Paramjit Singh lived together as husband and wife at Kapurthala. Two children were born to them out of the said wedlock. Paramjit Singh had performed marriage with Davinder Kaur with a view to immigrate Sandeep Sethi 2013.09.03 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No.M-8928 of 2008 (O&M) -3- to Canada as she was permanent resident of Canada before her marriage with Paramjit Singh. During the subsistence of his marriage with Davinder Kaur, Paramjit Singh had performed second marriage with Manjit Kaur on 21.01.2006.
In order to prove his case, complainant led his preliminary evidence. Trial Court vide impugned order dated 21.09.2007 (Annexure P-7) ordered the summoning of the petitioners and their co-accused to face the trial qua commission of offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 109 IPC.
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 report or the complainant/respondent No.2, even if they Sandeep Sethi 2013.09.03 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No.M-8928 of 2008 (O&M) -4- 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 Sandeep Sethi 2013.09.03 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No.M-8928 of 2008 (O&M) -5- 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 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."
Section 494 IPC reads as under:-
"Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife - Whoever, having a husband or wife living, Sandeep Sethi 2013.09.03 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No.M-8928 of 2008 (O&M) -6- marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
Thus, as per the above provision, whoever performs marriage during the subsistence of his earlier marriage shall be liable for punishment. As per the complainant, Paramjit Singh had performed marriage with Davinder Kaur on 19.03.1995 and thereafter, they had started residing in Canada. A persual of Anneuxre P-1 reveals that a decree of divorce was passed and marriage of Paramjit Singh with Davinder Kaur was ordered to be dissolved. The said order was passed on 31.08.2006. A perusal of Annexure P-2 reveals that Paramjit Singh performed marriage with petitioner No.1 Manjit Kaur on 04.01.2007. The said certificate has been issued by the Registrar of Marriages. Thus, it is evident that Paramjit Singh had performed marriage with petitioner No.1 after his marriage with Davinder Kaur was dissolved. Presently, Paramjit Singh is residing abroad and has yet not taken Manjit Kaur to Canada. Petitioners No.2 and 3 are parents of Manjit Kaur. A perusal of the complaint (Annexure P-4) reveals that no allegation has been levelled therein that the petitioners were aware of the first marriage of Paramjit Singh with Davinder Kaur. Rather, a perusal of the complaint reveals that allegations have been levelled against Sandeep Sethi 2013.09.03 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No.M-8928 of 2008 (O&M) -7- Paramjit Singh that he had performed marriage with Manjit Kaur- petitioner No.1 during the subsistence of his earlier marriage. Further as per Annexure P-2, Paramjit Singh had got married to Manjit Kaur on 04.01.2007 i.e. after the marriage of Paramjit Singh with Davinder Kaur was dissolved by the Court of British Columbia vide Anneure P-1.
In these circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, the impugned summoning order dated 21.09.2007 (Annexure P-7) is set aside qua the petitioners. Consequently, the complaint dated 12.06.2006 (Annexure P-4) titled "Darbara Singh Vs. Paramjit Singh & Others" qua the petitioners is deemed to have been dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE August 30, 2013.
sandeep sethi Sandeep Sethi 2013.09.03 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document