Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Kaur And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 27 September, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Criminal Misc. No.M- 17153 of 2012 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No.M- 17153 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: 27.9.2013
Rajinder Kaur and others
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.R.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.Neeraj Yadav, AAG, Punjab.
Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.Kulwant Singh, 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. 3 dated 21.6.2011 under Section 406/ 498-A/ 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) registered at Police Station NRI, Ludhiana (City) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Case of the complainant, in brief, is that respondent No.2 got married to Narvinder Singh Cheema on 27.11.2005. The Devi Anita marriage was got registered on 7.12.2005. Narvinder Singh reached 2013.10.01 11:04 I am approving this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M- 17153 of 2012 (O&M) 2 America after six months of the marriage with his wife. Initially, complainant and her husband lived together happily as husband and wife but after Narvinder Singh got the green card, his behaviour changed. Parents of the complainant had spent ` 4,00,000/- at the time of her marriage. Gold jewellery had been given to the husband of the complainant and his parents at the time of her marriage. Narvinder Singh had filed a divorce petition in America.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no cause of action had arisen in India. Respondent No.2 had come from America for marriage purposes. In fact, Narvinder Singh and Amandeep Cheema had gone to America after marriage. Now they have got a decree of divorce. In fact, respondent No.2 came to India only for a month and after lodging FIR in question, she again returned to America and had never visited India thereafter. Narvinder Singh had not visited India after he left for America. Respondent No.2 has got re-married in America.
Learned State counsel as well as learned senior counsel for respondent No.2 have opposed the petition and have submitted that respondent No.2 had been harassed by the petitioners.
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 Devi Anita of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under 2013.10.01 11:04 I am approving this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M- 17153 of 2012 (O&M) 3 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 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 Devi Anita offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer 2013.10.01 11:04 I am approving this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M- 17153 of 2012 (O&M) 4 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 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 Devi Anita FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or 2013.10.01 11:04 I am approving this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M- 17153 of 2012 (O&M) 5 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.
The Apex Court in the case of 'Sushil Kumar Sharma versus Union of India and others', 2005(3) R.C.R. (Criminal), 745, has held as under:-
"The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as he has been rightly contended by the petitioner many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bonafide and have been filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignomy (ignominy?) suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well-intentioned provision. Merely because the provision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleash harassment. It may, Devi Anita therefore, become necessary for the legislature to find 2013.10.01 11:04 I am approving this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M- 17153 of 2012 (O&M) 6 out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till then the Courts have to take care of the situation within the existing framework. As noted above the object is to strike at the roots of dowry menace. But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used a shield and not an assassins' weapon. If cry of "wolf" is made too often as a prank assistance and protection may not be available when the actual "wolf" appears. There is no question of investigating agency and Courts casually dealing with the allegations. They cannot follow any strait jacket formula in the matters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot be lost sight of that ultimate objective of every legal system is to arrive at truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent. There is no scope for any preconceived notion or view. It is strenuously argued by the petitioner that the investigating agencies and the courts start with the presumption that the accused persons are guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth. This is too wide available and generalized statement. Certain statutory presumptions are drawn which again are rebuttable. It is to be noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the courts is that of watchdog and not of a bloodhound. It should be their effort to see that an innocent person is not made to Devi Anita 2013.10.01 11:04 I am approving this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M- 17153 of 2012 (O&M) 7 suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. It is equally indisputable that in many cases no direct evidence is available and the courts have to act on circumstantial evidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view."
The facts of the present case are not in dispute. Narvinder Singh and respondent No.2 got married on 27.11.2005. Respondent No.2 had come to India from America for marriage purposes. Father of respondent No.2 is also residing in America. After marriage, Narvinder Singh reached America on 27.6.2006. A perusal of the FIR reveals that the relations between the parties had remained cordial in India. It appears that some matrimonial discord occurred between the parties in America. Consequently, divorce proceedings were initiated by Narvinder Singh in America. Admittedly, now the marriage between Narvinder Singh and respondent No.2 has been dissolved by the court in America. Annexure P-5 is the certificate of marriage of respondent No.2 with Amarjit Singh Sidhu on 30.3.2012. Respondent No.2 had come to India at the time of registration of the FIR but thereafter, she again went to America and had not visited India thereafter.
Thus, in the present case, no cause of action can be said to have arisen in India. Further respondent No.2 has got re-married after she got a divorce from Narvinder Singh with a view to move on in life. Hence, continuation of criminal proceedings against the Devi Anita petitioners, who are the parents and brother of Narvinder Singh 2013.10.01 11:04 I am approving this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M- 17153 of 2012 (O&M) 8 residing in India, would be nothing but an abuse of process of law Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 3 dated 21.6.2011 under Section 406/ 498-A/ 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) registered at Police Station NRI, Ludhiana (City) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE September 27, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.01 11:04 I am approving this document Chandigarh