Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jatinder Singh Sidhu vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 29 January, 2013
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
Crl.Misc.No. M-23714 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No. M-23714 of 2009(O & M)
Date of decision : 29.1.2013
Jatinder Singh Sidhu Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and Anr. Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. APS Deol, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Devinder Bir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Luvinder Sofat, AAG, Punjab assisted by
HC Shalinder Singh
Mr. Shailender Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2
.....
JITENDRA CHAUHAN,J.
This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 25 dated 17.3.2009, under sections 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Bhogpur, District Jalandhar and all the subsequent proceedings arising thereto.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is settled in Canada and marriage of petitioner with Amraj Kaur, daughter of the complainant was solemnized at Jalandhar on 4.3.2006. At the time of marriage, Amraj Kaur was also permanent resident of Canada. After the marriage, the relation between the parties remained cordial for about two months but thereafter, some differences arose between them. He further submits that the parties ceased to cohabitate in December, 2006 and filed a petition for break down of the marriage as defined in Section 8(2)(a) of the Crl.Misc.No. M-23714 of 2009 2 Divorce Act (Canada). The Court at British Columbia granted divorce under the Divorce Act (Canada) and dissolved the marriage of the parties by a certificate dated 25.9.2009 w.e.f 27.7.2008 (Annexure P-2). He further submits that Amraj Kaur has contracted second marriage in June 2009 with one Harpreet Singh Gill. He states that the respondent-complainant, mother of Amraj Kaur, filed two complaints one at Bhatinda, dated 1.12.2008 and other at Jalandhar in 2009, on the basis of which, present FIR was lodged. He further submits that the complaint lodged at Bhatinda was enquired into by the police, no incriminating circumstance was noticed and accordingly, the complaint was filed. He prays that the instant FIR and all other subsequent proceedings may be quashed, as the same have been filed to harass the petitioner. He cites, Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, (2009)7 Supreme Court Cases,
712. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that the daughter of complainant was subjected to cruelty and deserted by the petitioner and that petitioner has not obtained divorce, as provided under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner married to her daughter in order to settle in Canada. He further states that the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender in the complaint filed at Jalandhar. He opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned State counsel has no objection to the quashing of the FIR.
Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the file. Indisputably, marriage between the parties was solemnized at Jalandhar on 4.3.2006. Both the parties were settled in Canada. After a stay Crl.Misc.No. M-23714 of 2009 3 of about one month in India, they left for Canada. The matrimonial differences arose between the parties at Canada and they ceased to cohabitate in December,2006 and decided to break the marriage. No child was born out of the wedlock. A petition under section 8(2)(a) of the Divorce Act (Canada) was filed and the Court at Canada granted divorce under the Divorce Act (Canada) and dissolved the marriage by a certificate of divorce dated 25.9.2008 (Annexure P-2). The marriage was dissolved w.e.f 27.7.2008. Thereafter, the family of petitioner has no relation/concern with the family of Amraj Kaur, daughter of the complainant-Balbir Kaur. Balbir Kaur filed a complaint dated 1.12.2008 before Sr. Superintendent of Police, Bhatinda alleging that her daughter had been cheated by the petitioner and his family members and that she was deserted by the petitioner while in Canada due to non-fulfilment of their dowry demands. The SSP, Bhatinda called the report of DSP (H) Bhatinda. An enquiry was conducted and a report dated 20.1.2009 (Annexure P-3) was submitted that the allegations levelled by Balbir Kaur were found to be not substantial and the complaint was ordered to be filed. Thereafter, Balbir Kaur filed another complaint alleging that the petitioner has come to India to contract second marriage. She also alleged that the petitioner had taken Rs. 3 lacs from her in the year 2006, and thus, cheated her. On the said complaint of Balbir Kaur, SSP, Jalandhar, ordered for registration of the instant FIR.
Amraj Kaur, daughter of the complainant has contracted second marriage in Canada with one Harpreet Singh Gill. The parties lay no claim against each other after the grant of divorce by the Court of law in Canada. For establishing the offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the petitioner had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of Crl.Misc.No. M-23714 of 2009 4 making promise or representation. From his making failure to keep promise subsequently, such a culpable intention right at the beginning, that is, at the time when the promise was made cannot be presumed. From the facts of the case, it is clear that no act of inducement on the part of the petitioner has been alleged by the respondent. No allegation has been made that he had an intention to cheat the respondent or her daughter from the very inception. The petitioner was already settled abroad, so as the daughter of the complainant. They came to India and marriage was solemnized. The intention of the petitioner to settle abroad after the marriage is far fetched. It is, therefore, evident that the element of wrongful intention should ordinarily exist from the inception of the contract. FIR does not satisfy the aforementioned test. The parties resided at Bhatinda for one month after the marriage, that is in the year 2006. They sought divorce in December,2006 at Canada. Daughter of the respondent-complainant contracted second marriage in June, 2009. The enquiry conducted by the DSP (H) Bhatinda was ordered to be filed, as no offence was made out against the petitioner and his family members. It seems that the allegations made in the complaint on the basis of which instant FIR was registered, are made with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioner. Continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would, therefore, amount to abuse of process of Court. This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C, can interfere where the action on the part of the complainant is mala-fide and abuse of process of law.
There is no evidence of entrustment of Rs. 3 lacs as asserted by the complainant. The marriage between the parties stand dissolved by the competent court on the basis of joint petition filed by the parties. Similar Crl.Misc.No. M-23714 of 2009 5 complaint moved by the complainant, after enquiry was filed by the District Police, Bhatinda. The daughter of the complainant has already solemnized second marriage and she is not before the Court to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint.
In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings alive.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 25 dated 17.3.2009, under sections 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Bhogpur, District Jalandhar and all the subsequent proceedings arising thereto, are hereby quashed, qua the petitioner.
(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE 29.1.2013 MS