Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kanwalinder Singh Srao And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 7 October, 2013
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
(1) Criminal Misc. No.M-15813 of 2008 (O&M)
.....
Date of decision:7.10.2013
Kanwalinder Singh Srao and another
...Petitioners
v.
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
....
(2) Criminal Misc. No.M-22564 of 2008 (O&M)
.....
Gurpartap Singh Srao
...Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
....
(3) Criminal Misc. No.M-1268 of 2009 (O&M)
.....
Rikki Srao and another
...Petitioners
v.
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
....
(4) Criminal Misc. No.M-36187 of 2011 (O&M)
.....
Amarjit Singh Srao and another
...Petitioners
v.
Parmar Harpal Singh
2013.10.11 17:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
Cr. Misc. Nos.M-15813 of 2008 etc.
[2]
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
....
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rachna Slath,
Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Harsimrat Rai, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the
respondent-State.
Mr. S.S. Toor, Advocate for the complainant-respondent
No.2.
.....
Inderjit Singh, J.
This order will dispose of the above mentioned four criminal miscellaneous petitions i.e. Criminal Misc. No.M-15813 of 2008 filed by Kanwalinder Singh Srao and Santosh Srao; Criminal Misc. No.M-22564 of 2008 filed by Gurpartap Singh Srao, Criminal Misc. No.M-1268 of 2009 filed by Rikki Srao and Criminal Misc. No.M-36187 of 2011 filed by Amarjit Singh Srao and Gurmeet Kaur under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.605 dated 20.12.2007 registered at Police Station Sadar Patiala for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 498-A and 120-B IPC and order dated 12.10.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby he rejected the revision petition of the petitioners against the order of Judicial Magistrate Patiala whereby charges had been framed.
The facts as stated in the FIR are that an advertisement was given in the Daily Tribune dated 4.9.2004 that Rikki Srao intended to Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.10.11 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. Nos.M-15813 of 2008 etc. [3] marry and offers from suitable matches were invited. This advertisement was issued by mother of Rikki Srao. The complainant was interested to settle abroad. Rikki Srao came to India on 25.2.2005 after receiving e- mail of the complainant on 24.1.2005. A meeting was arranged and the parents of the complainant met Kanwalinder Singh Srao son of Gurpartap Singh, who migrated to United Kingdom (U.K.) more than 40 years ago. Gurpartap Singh is grand-father of Rikki Srao, Amarjit Singh is younger brother of Gurpartap Singh. Gurmeet Kaur is daughter-in-law of Darshan Singh another younger brother of Gurpartap Singh. Rikki Srao is husband of the complainant Gurpreet Kaur. Kanwalinder Singh Srao and Santosh Srao are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant.
As per brief facts of the prosecution case as given in the FIR, which has been got registered by complainant Gurpreet Kaur, the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with Rikki Srao on 6.3.2005 at Patiala according to Anand Karaj ceremony. Before the marriage, the parents and grand-father of Rikki Srao and Amarjit Singh Srao told the parents of Gurpreet Kaur complainant that Rikki Srao is unmarried and is a gentleman having good character and there will be no demand of dowry from the side of the husband. It is also stated in the FIR that the parents of complainant Gurpreet Kaur had spent Rs.15 Lacs on the marriage. It is also case of the complainant that sufficient gold ornaments were given to the husband and his family members, relatives weighing about 45 Tolas, cash amount of `31,000/- at the time of `Shagun' and `21,000/- at the time of ring ceremony were also given. A joint party was also held on Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.10.11 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. Nos.M-15813 of 2008 etc. [4] 23.10.2005 and the marriage was also registered with the office of Registrar of Marriages at Patiala. After the marriage, Rikki Srao used to visit many times and stayed with the complainant at Patiala and he used to compel the complainant to arrange `30 Lacs from her parents for purchase of big car, house-hold articles and residential house at U.K. and then he would call the complainant in U.K. with the undertaking that he would arrange for Visa to her but the Visa was refused two times as Rikki Srao had committed offence in U.K. and due to this reason, the Visa of the complainant was refused. Ultimately, on 22.3.2007, the complainant went to U.K. and after her visit, the complainant found that her husband was not having good character and he was indulging in a bad society of drugs and he had already got punishment for six years in false marriage and kidnapping case in 1999 as per matter published in newspaper against the husband on 11.8.2000. After the visit of the complainant in U.K., her husband never met her, but it was found that he was indulging in drugs and was residing with one Miss Gillian Marte Thomson, with whom he was operating the bank account jointly. The husband never tried to see the complainant while she was residing in the house of her in-laws in U.K. from 23.3.2007 to 9.10.2007 and on inquiry it came to her notice that her husband Rikki Srao was confined in Jail at Manchester in hurt case/violence case for nine months and at that time he was serving his sentence there. Another drug case against him was also pending in U.K. All these above facts had not been disclosed by the parents and grand- father of Rikki Srao and they had committed a fraud with the complainant Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.10.11 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. Nos.M-15813 of 2008 etc. [5] at the time of solemnization of her marriage and they had cheated the complainant and her family members. In the FIR, the maltreatment etc. suffered by the complainant in U.K. and also regarding demand of dowry has been mentioned. A letter was written by Rikki Srao to mother of the complainant in which he stated that he did a wrong by getting married. He felt sorry but he had his love in else where which he could not break for the life of her. He loves Gillian and he is languishing in Jail any way he is finishing a sentence to which he got nine months and he is on demand for other charges which are very serious, if it goes bad for him in looking at between 10 to 20 years in prison. He was got arrested when he was in custody by Serious Organized Crime Agency charged with ridiculous in posting charge. He came to India and the complainant also returned to India and the FIR for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 498-A and 120-B IPC was registered.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners argued that Kanwalinder Singh Srao, Santosh Srao, Rikki Srao and Gurpartap Singh Srao are citizens of U.K. and in U.K. it is not possible to maltreat or harass any person and these allegations are false. He argued that there is no question of demand of dowry in the present case, rather Rikki Srao and Kanwalinder Singh Srao sent huge money from U.K. to the complainant, when she was in India and a civil suit for recovery is pending against her. He argued that huge amount had been sent from U.K., therefore, demand of dowry of `30 Lacs is false. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further argued that gold ornaments and the cash amount given at the time Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.10.11 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. Nos.M-15813 of 2008 etc. [6] of marriage, at the most, can be treated as gift articles and these articles cannot be held as dowry articles. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners next argued that no offence of cheating is made out. He argued that no demand was ever raised. No maltreatment was given to the complainant. She was serving in U.K. during her stay. Therefore, the question of stopping her from going outside is totally wrong and cannot be believed. He further argued that only general allegations have been levelled. He further argued that the family members of the complainant were knowing all these facts and no cheating was committed by any of the petitioner. He further argued that the offence of cheating is not made out. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further argued that Amarjit Singh is younger brother of Gurpartap Singh, who is grand-father of the husband of the complainant. Gurmeet Kaur is daughter-in-law of another younger brother, namely, Darshan Singh of Gurpartap Singh. Amarjit Singh and Gurmeet Kaur are residing at Patiala and challan has been presented only against them. He argued that District Attorney has given the opinion at the time of investigation that no case is made out against Gurpartap Singh. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners argued that proclamation proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against Gurpartap Singh are also illegal.
On the other hand learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 argued that at this stage it cannot be held that the allegations are false and a false case has been registered. All these facts are to be proved by leading evidence Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.10.11 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. Nos.M-15813 of 2008 etc. [7] before the trial Court and quashing petitions at this stage cannot be allowed. Learned counsel for the complainant and learned Deputy advocate General, Punjab further argued that the offence of cheating is clearly made out from the averments made in the FIR and from the statements of the complainant and other relatives. They argued that if all these facts would have been told to the complainant and her family, then she would not have agreed for the marriage. Therefore, concealment of material facts intentionally to deceit the family of the complainant amounts to cheating as per definition of Section 415 IPC. They also argued that when one offence is committed in the jurisdiction of Patiala Court, then if any other offence is committed outside Patiala jurisdiction, the FIR can be registered at Patiala. They argued that it cannot be held that the FIR cannot be registered at Patiala but only in U.K. They argued that there being no merit in these quashing petitions, the same should be dismissed.
I have gone through the record minutely and carefully and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties.
From the record, I do not find any merit in the arguments of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. First of all, the fact whether any dowry articles were given at the time of marriage or whether these have been misappropriated or whether any maltreatment has been given to the complainant is to be determined on the basis of evidence. The challan has already been presented against Amarjit Singh and Gurmeet Kaur petitioners and no challan has been presented against the other petitioners. Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.10.11 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Cr. Misc. Nos.M-15813 of 2008 etc. [8] It is admitted at the time of arguments by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that during the stay of the complainant in U.K. for about seven months, Rikki Srao petitioner was in the Jail and undergoing sentence of six years. This fact is also not disputed that Rikki Srao was sentenced to six years in a case in the year 1999. The letter written by Rikki Srao to the mother of the complainant, as mentioned in the FIR, is also placed on the record, which also shows that Rikki Srao was residing with one Gillian Marte Thomson. As per the FIR, petitioner Rikki Srao has a joint account with Gillian. All these facts, prima facie, show that Rikki Srao was a person of bad character and he was sentenced in U.K. for six years and he was undergoing sentence and as per his letter, he was required in other case also and he could be sentenced to ten to twenty years imprisonment. If all these facts would have been told at the time of talk of marriage, then the complainant might have not agreed for the marriage. As per allegations in the FIR, all these material facts have been concealed from the complainant and her family intentionally to deceit the family of the complainant. Definition of cheating has been given in Section 415 IPC, which states as under:-
"415. Cheating.-
Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.10.11 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. Nos.M-15813 of 2008 etc. [9] or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
Explanation.--A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section."
In view of the definition of cheating, it cannot be held that no offence of cheating is made out. The offence may not fall under Section 420 IPC but it may fall under Section 417 IPC or other offence. In no way, it can be held that it is a case of no offence. Gurpartap Singh, Kanwalinder Singh Srao, Santosh, Amarjit Singh and Gurmeet Kaur are the close relatives and were having the knowledge regarding the character of Rikki Srao. All these material facts have been concealed intentionally from the complainant and her family. Due to the concealment of these material facts, the complainant was married with Rikki Srao and she suffered harm to her person in body, mind and reputation. Such type of offences in Punjab are committed in routine by the Non-resident Indians by cheating the innocent girls and after marriage either the girls are left or have to face the painful moments in life. Therefore, it cannot be held that no offence is made out. Even if one offence is committed in the jurisdiction of Patiala District and the other offence in continuation has been committed at some other place, the FIR can be registered at Patiala.
The opinion of the District Attorney is only an opinion and on the basis of this it cannot be held that no case is made out against Gurpartap Singh Srao. Whether the amount has been sent from U.K. to Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.10.11 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. Nos.M-15813 of 2008 etc. [10] the complainant or not is also a matter of evidence and it is to be proved during the trial and the trial Court is to appreciate the evidence to determine whether there is any demand of dowry etc. or not and this fact is to be considered while determining whether any demand of dowry is raised or not.
As regards the order of declaring Gurpartap Singh as proclaimed offender, on this ground also the FIR and the subsequent proceedings cannot be quashed. The validity of order passed declaring Gurpartap Singh Srao as proclaimed offender can be seen in the appropriate bail proceedings or the petitioners can challenge it independently.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of U.P. and another, AIR 2013 SC 181. I have gone through this judgement. This judgement is having distinguished facts, will not apply in the present case as in that case it was held that there was mere casual reference to the names of the other relatives in the FIR, which is not the case in the present case. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further placed reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Fatma Bibi Ahmed Patel v. State of Gujarat and another, AIR 2008 SC 2392. I have gone through this judgement. This judgement having distinguished facts, will not apply in the present case. In that case the accused-petitioners were not citizen of India and the offences committed outside India, which is not the case in the present case. The offence of cheating is committed Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.10.11 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. Nos.M-15813 of 2008 etc. [11] in India. The offence under Section 406 IPC is also committed in India. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further placed reliance on the judgement of Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) 7 SCC 667, in which it is held that genuine cases of dowry harassment is matter of serious concern but exaggerated version of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Allegations to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection, especially against husband's relatives who were living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the matrimonial home of the complainant. I have gone through this case. This case having distinguished facts, will not apply in the present case. Learned senior counsel further placed reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Vipin Jaiswal (A-I) v. State of A.P. Rep. By Pub. Prosecutor, 2013 (2) RCR (Cr.) 342. In this case, it is held that husband making demand of `50,000/- after 6 months of marriage for purchase of computer to start business, held, the demand is not in connection with the marriage and was not really a `dowry demand' within the meaning of Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. This case having distinguished facts, will not apply in the present case. Learned senior counsel further placed reliance on the judgement of this Court in G.V. Bhaskar Rao and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2013 (2) RCR (Cr.) 841 (P&H), in which it is held that criminal proceedings quashed even if the charge-sheet was put up. I have gone through this citation which is having distinguished facts and will not apply in the present case, as in that case the dispute between the Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.10.11 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. Nos.M-15813 of 2008 etc. [12] complainant and the petitioner was over the payment of supply of goods and it was held as a dispute of civil nature. Learned senior counsel further placed reliance on the judgements of Rajasthan High Court in Mohd. Hussani v. State of Rajasthan, 2012 (3) RCR (Cr.) 179 (Rajasthan) and of this Court in Satinder Singh v. The State of U.T., Chandigarh and another, 2011 (2) RCR (Cr.) 89 (P&H). I have gone through these judgements. These cases have been filed under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. regarding declaring proclaimed offenders etc. These cases are having distinguished facts and will not apply in the present case.
Therefore, from the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the arguments of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and all the criminal miscellaneous petitions are dismissed. October 7, 2013. (Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.10.11 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh