Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kulvinder Singh Mangat And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 3 July, 2012
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Criminal Misc. No.M-13224 of 2010 (O&M) 1
Criminal Misc. No.M-32065 of 2010 (O&M)
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision: 3.7.2012
Criminal Misc. No.M-13224 of 2010 (O&M)
Kulvinder Singh Mangat and others
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.......Respondents
Criminal Misc. No.M-32065 of 2010 (O&M)
Surjit Kaur
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.V.K.Jindal, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.D.S.Paul, DAG, Punjab.
Mr.Charanjit Sharma, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
****
SABINA, J.
Vide this order, the above mentioned two petitions would be disposed of as in both the petitions, the petitioners have sought Criminal Misc. No.M-13224 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Criminal Misc. No.M-32065 of 2010 (O&M) quashing of FIR No.70 dated 30.6.2008 under Section 406/ 498-A/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (the Act for short) registered at Police Station Khammano Kalan, District Fatehgarh Sahib and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
FIR, as reproduced in the petition, reads as under:-
"My name is Sukhvinder Kaur. I am resident of Ward No. 7, Khamano, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab. That my daughter named Jaspreet Kaur was married to Kulvinder Singh Mangat with Sikh marriage rites (Anandkarj) on 25.11.2003 at JIFE Resorts Sahnewal, Punjab. Being only daughter, I spent huge money on her marriage. About 600 persons attended this wedding. About Rs. 16 lacs were spent on her marriage including catering. A Maruti Zen Car bearing registration No. PB- 49-7511 as demanded, 105 Tola Golden jewelry, clothes, two lacs cash etc, as Ishtridhan. About two weeks they resided as husband and wife in Khanna and on 5th December, 2003 they went to Hong Kong. About 9 months they lived happily and after that Charanjit Kaur (mother in law) started teasing my daughter for bringing less dowry and also told to my daughter that Charanjit Kaur has spent huge amount of money on marriage of her daughter Sukhvinder Kaur and my daughter should bring more dowry to live happily and want to settle in Hong Criminal Misc. No.M-13224 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Criminal Misc. No.M-32065 of 2010 (O&M) Kong. As they were constructing house in Mohali so they need money for its constructions. Kulvinder Singh (Husband) and Lakhvir Singh (Father in law) also followed foot steps of Charanjit Kaur for bringing more money. For some time my daughter remained silent but they continuously started pressurizing her. In the month of January 2005 my daughter came to India. She shared her feeling with me regarding their demand of money. When I came to know this matter, I gave a phone call to Charanjit Kaur (mother in law). She talked with me in a rude manner and demanded 15 lacs Rupees. She threatened me that if I do not fulfill her demands, she will re-marry her son. She also told me to arrange this huge amount of money till month of March/April as she was coming to India during this period for the heart treatment of her mother (Surjit Kaur) and also for performing Greh Parvesh Ceremony of house in Mohali. I withdraw 3 lacs from account No. 18562 and two lacs from account no. 19421 from on 24.3.2005, 50,000 from account of 18562 and 50,000 from account no. 19421 on 7.4.2005. All from Punjab and Sind Bank, Khamano. On 19.4.2005 I alongwith my son my husband and my brother went to Mohali and gave 6.0 lacs to Charanjit Kaur. When she came to know that we have brought only Rs. 6.0 lacs she got angry and behaved very rudely with us. She again Criminal Misc. No.M-13224 of 2010 (O&M) 4 Criminal Misc. No.M-32065 of 2010 (O&M) threatened me that I do not give her rent of money she will not take my daughter back to Hong Kong and also she threatened me that she will re-marriage of her son. Then we requested to her to give us time for arranging money and we also requested her not to leave my daughter and take her back to Hong Kong. Then my daughter went back to Hong Kong. Charanjit Kaur has joint account with my daughter and withdraws salaried money of my daughter without her consent for her personal use. Charanjit Kuar, Lakhvir Sing and Kulvinder Singh regularly teased and taunted my daughter to get the remaining money. In the mean time my daughter get pregnant and on 10th April, 2006 my daughter gave birth to a female child. As no male child was born, her husband (Kulvinder singh and Charanjit kaur) started teasing her. On 15.5.2006, Kulvinder Singh gave her beatings in the presence of Charanjit Kaur and Lakhbir Singh and threatened her that they will not extend her Visa and also to give her divorce if they do not give them money. My daughter showed inability to bring that huge amount of money as huge money has been spent on her marriage and thereafter. Charanjit Kaur and Lakhvinder Singh started treating my daughter like servants. I talked on phone to Charanjit Kaur regarding their demand of huge money for extension of my daugher's Visa. Again Criminal Misc. No.M-13224 of 2010 (O&M) 5 Criminal Misc. No.M-32065 of 2010 (O&M) Charanjit Kaur threatened me for re-marriage of their son. If they do not give them remaining amount and they will send my daughter to India. I assured my inability to give such a huge amount of money but I assured Charanjit kaur that I can arrange some money. On 12.6.2007, I borrowed 2.0 lacs from Surjit Singh son of Harcharn Singh resident of Ward No. 3, khamano District Fatehgarh Sahib Punjab and on the direction of Charanjit Kaur I gave these 2.0 lacs Rupees to Surjit Kaur (Mother of Charanjit Kaur) at her residence in Mohali. After receiving the money they start demanding the rest of the money soon because the date of expiry of daughter Visa was coming near in the month of October 2007. Charanjit Kaur was in India and started demanding remaining money. I assured my inability to arrange such amount of money as my husband was ill and are not able to fulfill the demand of money. When they came to know that they will not get any money from us, Kulvinder Singh got furious and beat my daughter and told my daughter that he is not going to extend her Visa and asked my daughter to return to India. After all the happenings my daughter somehow managed to get employment visa on the basis of her job as a Teacher in School on knowing to her husband that she has procured employment visa he furious and gave her beating and threatened to ruin my daughter's life and Criminal Misc. No.M-13224 of 2010 (O&M) 6 Criminal Misc. No.M-32065 of 2010 (O&M) also he disclosed my daughter that he had an affair with Chinese girl and wanted to marry her. After that Kulvinder Singh started living separately from my daughter at Flat E, Block 137 Floor See View, Crescent, Tung Chung, New Territories, Hong Kong. So my daughter is in great difficulty because of these demands of dowry, mal- treatment and harassment. Therefore, legal action may kindly be taken against the accused and justice be done to me. I will be thankful to you."
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Jaspreet Kaur, daughter of the complainant, was married to Kulvinder Singh on 25.11.2003 at Sahnewal. Thereafter, the couple left for Hong Kong on 5.12.2003. The matrimonial relations between them became strained. Divorce petition was filed by petitioner Kulvinder Singh. Jaspreet Kaur gave her consent for grant of decree of divorce and consequently, the decree of divorce was granted. The couple had also settled their dispute qua the custody of the child. Jaspreet Kaur was residing in Hong Kong. Petitioner Surjit Kaur was about 90 years old and was maternal grand mother of Kulvinder Singh. The petitioners had been falsely involved in this case.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has submitted that all the petitioners were guilty of harassing the daughter of the complainant on account of insufficiency of dowry. Hence, the criminal proceedings were liable to continue.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going Criminal Misc. No.M-13224 of 2010 (O&M) 7 Criminal Misc. No.M-32065 of 2010 (O&M) through the record available on the file carefully, I am of the opinion that the present petitions deserve 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 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 Criminal Misc. No.M-13224 of 2010 (O&M) 8 Criminal Misc. No.M-32065 of 2010 (O&M) 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 (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 Criminal Misc. No.M-13224 of 2010 (O&M) 9 Criminal Misc. No.M-32065 of 2010 (O&M) 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 Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab and others, 2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 696 (SC), their Lordships of the Apex Court have observed that a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases and if it is not discouraged, it is likely to affect case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. The efforts for involving the other relations ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused.
In the present case, admittedly, the marriage of Jaspreet Kaur with Kulvinder Singh had taken place on 25.11.2003 at village Sahnewal. Thereafter, they left for Hong Kong on 5.12.2003. The couple was blessed with a daughter. The parents of Kulvinder Singh are also residing in Hong Kong. Presently, Jaspreet Kaur is also residing in Hong Kong. Kulvinder Singh has not visited India after 5.12.2003. A perusal of Annexure P-1 attached with CRM-M Criminal Misc. No.M-13224 of 2010 (O&M) 10 Criminal Misc. No.M-32065 of 2010 (O&M) No.13224 of 2010 reveals that in a divorce petition filed by Kulvinder Singh in the Court at Hong Kong, Jaspreet Kaur had given her consent for grant of decree of divorce. The said order is dated 24.6.2009. A perusal of the order dated 17.11.2009 (Annexure P-2) attached with CRM-M No.13224 of 2010 reveals that the parties had also made settlement qua the custody of the child. It was ordered by consent as under by the Court at Hong Kong:-
"1. The parties shall have joint custody and joint care and control of the MANGAT KAVLEEN KAUR, girl, born on 10th April 2006;
2. There be no change to the existing arrangement for access as set out in the Order dated 1st September 2008 until 30th day of June 2010;
3. The parties shall have staying access to the child of the family on alternative week starting from 4th July 2010;
4. There shall be a Supervision Order by the Director of Social Welfare Department for 12 months until 17th November 2010;
5. A further progress report by the Director of Social Welfare Department shall be submitted to the Court on or before 1st July 2010;
6. There be no order as to costs on all reserved costs orders on custody care, control and access and the costs of today's hearing;Criminal Misc. No.M-13224 of 2010 (O&M) 11
Criminal Misc. No.M-32065 of 2010 (O&M)
7. The cost of the respondent be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations."
The couple had, thus, lived in India for only ten days after their marriage and thereafter, lived together as husband and wife in Hong Kong. Their matrimonial disputes were settled in the court at Hong Kong. However, the complainant-mother of Jaspreet Kaur has initiated criminal proceedings against the husband of Jaspreet Kaur and his family members in India. Petitioner Surjit Kaur is aged 90 years. She is the maternal grandmother of Kulvinder Singh. Since, she is residing in India, she has been unnecessarily dragged in this litigation. The criminal proceedings against the petitioners are nothing but an abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed. FIR No.70 dated 30.6.2008 under Section 406/ 498-A/ 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act registered at Police Station Khammano Kalan, District Fatehgarh Sahib and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE July 03, 2012 anita