Gurmel Kaur vs State of Punjab and Others

Sabina, J.—Vide this judgment, above mentioned two petitions would be disposed of as petitioners have sought quashing of the FIR No. 121 dated 30.4.2004, u/s 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (''IPC'' for short), registered at Police Station Mohali, District Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner Tarlochanjit Singh had got married to Jaspreet Kaur on 24.2.2003. At the time of marriage, petitioners had come to India from Netherlands whereas Jaspreet Kaur had come from America. Thereafter, Jaspreet Kaur left with the petitioners for Netherlands on 10.3.2003. Jaspreet Kaur then left for America on 6.6.2003. FIR in question was registered by respondent No. 3, uncle of Jaspreet Kaur, on 30.4.2004 against the petitioners. No cause of action had arisen in India. Jaspreet Kaur had got a decree of divorce in America on 4.4.2005 and, had, thereafter got re-married.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioners in the FIR.

None has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 3.

In the present case, FIR has been got registered by complainant Tejinder Singh Sandhu against the petitioners levelling allegations that his niece Jaspreet Kaur was married to petitioner Tarlochanjit Singh. After marriage, Jaspreet Kaur was harassed by the petitioners on account of insufficiency of dowry whereas sufficient dowry had been given at the time of her marriage.

In the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, , 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 u/s 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 channelised 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 u/s 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 u/s 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.

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.

In the present case, admittedly, Jaspreet Kaur is resident of America and had visited India qua marriage purposes. Petitioners are residents of Netherlands and had come to India for marriage purposes. Petitioner Tarlochanjit Singh got married to Jaspreet Kaur in India on 24.2.2003. Thereafter, Jaspreet Kaur left for Netherlands along with her husband on 10.3.2003. Thereafter, Jaspreet Kaur left for America on 6.6.2003. A perusal of Annexure P-2 reveals that Jaspreet Kaur had approached the Court at New York seeking a decree of divorce. The said petition was allowed and the marriage of Jaspreet Kaur with Tarlochanjit Singh was ordered to be dissolved. The said order is dated 31.3.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of arguments, has submitted that thereafter, Jaspreet Kaur had got re-married. Thus, in the present case, it is evident that cause of action, if any, could be said to have arisen in Netherlands as Jaspreet Kaur had left with her husband for Netherlands after her marriage and they had lived in India after marriage for about 13 days only. It has further been stated during the course of arguments that petitioners have not visited India after 10.3.2003. Petitioner Tarlochanjit Singh is stated to have not visited America. Jaspreet Kaur got a decree of divorce in her favour from the Court at New York. It appears that some matrimonial discord occurred between the couple which has resulted in lodging of the FIR in India by the uncle of Jaspreet Kaur. In this factual background, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed. FIR No. 121 dated 30.4.2004, u/s 406, 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Mohali, District Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.