Jaswinder Singh Sidhu vs State of Punjab and Another

M.M.S. Bedi, J.—Reply filed. Petitioner-Jalwinder Singh has put in appearance before the Illaqa Magistrate, pursuant to the interim orders

passed by this Court on 28.11.2008 and has been released on bail as directed. He seeks quashing of FIR No. 23, dated 20.1.2006, under

Sections 498-A and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Faridkot, District Faridkot. As per the allegations in the FIR, which was

registered by Harinder Pal Singh, Mandeep Kaur, his sister was married to the petitioner, who is residing in Canada., At the time of marriage,

dowry articles had been given by spending about 5 lac of Rupees. It is alleged that demand of car in dowry was made. Petitioner had started

harassing complainant''s sister in Canada and she used to tell the same to the complainant on telephone. In February 2004, Mandeep Kaur gave

Birth to a child and on this father of the complainant had made the expenses as per rituals. Thereafter, petitioner started harassing Mandeep Kaur

in Canada and made a demand of 15,000 dollars from the father of the complainant. On 19.1.2006, when complainant and his wife Manjeet Kaur

were present in the house, petitioner allegedly went to their house and said that the complainant had not given a car in the marriage and that he

would perform another marriage in India and would teach a lesson to the complainant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that bare reading of FIR indicates that no offence is made out against the petitioner. It has also been

pointed out that cancellation report has been submitted by the police. A copy of the cancellation report has been placed on record as Annexure P-

It has also been argued that petitioner and his wife Mandeep Kaur i.e. Complainant''s sister have already got a divorce in Canada by Provincial

Court of British Columbia. Wife of the petitioner had made a statement of claim before the Hon''ble Supreme Court of British Columbia. In that

petition no allegations of cruelty or demand of dowry were raised.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has argued that the divorce was granted after the FIR has been registered, as such it will not have an

impact in criminal proceedings.

Bare perusal of the FIR indicates that not even a single event is mentioned in the FIR regarding petitioner having treated, his wife with cruelty in

India. There are vague allegations of demand of dowry. It is also apparent that no statement of the wife of the petitioner has been record. It is not

understood as to how a fresh inquiry had been taken subsequently without there being any order u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C. Even if the allegations in the

FIR reported to be true, no offence is made out against the petitioner. Even material collected during investigation does not include statement of

Mandeep Kaur.

I have considered the averments in the FIR. There is absolutely no allegation of criminal intimidation on the part of the petitioner.

State counsel informs that during the course of second investigation offence u/s 406 IPC has been made on the basis of the statement made by

the complainant. A perusal of that statement indicates that there are vague allegations of demand of dowry. Neither there is any misappropriation of

Istri Dhan nor any averment that demand was ever made of any article of Istri Dhan, in presence of the petitioner in India or Canada.

In view of above circumstances, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of process of the Court.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Above-mentioned FIR and all the subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed, in the interest of justice.