Crl. Misc. No.M-28778 of 2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No.M-28778 of 2014
Date of Decision: 24.02.2016
Manjit Singh Shahi ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ....Respondents
BEFORE :- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed
to see the judgment ? (Yes/No)
2. To be referred to reporters or not ? (Yes/No)
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
(Yes/No)
Present:- Mr. J.S. Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. T.N. Sarup, Addl. A.G., Punjab
for the respondent-State.
*****
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for
quashing of FIR No.71 dated 23.07.2011 registered under Sections 406,
420, 498-A and 201 IPC at Police Station Khamano, District Fatehgarh
Sahib.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
ex-husband of daughter of the complainant and has falsely been implicated
in the case along with his other family members. During inquiry, the
allegations qua other family members of the petitioner were found to be
false and they were declared innocent. The present petitioner is the only
accused in this case and challan has been presented against him. Learned
Crl. Misc. No.M-28778 of 2014 2
counsel also submits that initially, a complaint was made by the
complainant to Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib on
19.01.2011 without being any allegation of rape, maltreatment or giving of
any beatings by any family member of the petitioner. Rather it was stated in
the complaint that the daughter of the complainant stayed in her in-laws’
house for one day only and thereafter, she returned to Canada due to
some emergent duty. The matter was investigated into by the Inspector of
Economic Offences Wing, Fatehgarh Sahib, wherein, the complainant
suffered a statement that he did not want to take any action on the
complaint moved by him and the same be filed.
After recording the statement of the complainant, the complaint
was submitted to Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib and it
was filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the present
FIR has been registered on the basis of the complaint made by the
complainant, whereas, the same allegations have already been
investigated into and were found to be false. The marriage between the
petitioner and daughter of the complainant was solemnised on 13.11.2007
and no family member was present at that time. The daughter of the
complainant left for Canada immediately after marriage and she applied for
permanent status of the petitioner before the Canadian Authorities but the
same was rejected. Learned counsel further submits that even as per
allegations levelled in the FIR, no offence is made out against the
petitioner. A divorce has also been granted between the parties by the
Court at Canada. In absence of the daughter of the complainant, the
continuation of the proceedings is a misuse of process of law. Learned
counsel further submits that in spite of having various opportunities, the
factum of divorce has not been ascertained by the Investigating Officer,
whereas, respondent No.2 has been served but none has appeared for her.
Crl. Misc. No.M-28778 of 2014 3
The FIR and other proceedings are liable to be quashed in view of ratio of
law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case State of Haryana vs Ch.
Bhajan Lal 1991(1) RCR (Criminal) 383.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that
specific allegations regarding demand of dowry and harassment are there
against the petitioner. He further submits that the factum of divorce has not
been ascertained.
Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and
have also perused the allegations levelled in the FIR as well as other
documents available on the file.
Admittedly, the marriage between the petitioner and daughter
of the complainant took place on 13.11.2007. The FIR, in question, was
registered under Sections 406, 420, 498-A and 120-B IPC against the
present petitioner, his father-Jaspal Singh Shahi, his brother-Kamaljit Singh
Shahi and his sister-Amanpreet Kaur Shahi. Except the petitioner,
remaining accused were found innocent during inquiry. Challan was
presented against the present petitioner only. Although, notice was issued
to respondent No.2 but in spite of service, none has come present. Initially,
a complaint was made to Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib
on 19.01.2011 but no allegations of rape, maltreatment or giving of any
beatings by any family member of the petitioner were levelled. The
daughter of the complainant stayed only for one day in her in-law’s family
and immediately after that, she returned to Canada. The said complaint
was investigated into by Inspector Lakhvir Singh of the Economic Offences
Wing, Fatehgarh Sahib. The complainant had also suffered a statement
stating therein that he does not want any action to be taken on the
complaint moved by him. The said complaint was filed after recording the
Crl. Misc. No.M-28778 of 2014 4
statement of the complainant on 31.03.2011. Thereafter, another complaint
was filed by complainant-respondent No.2 on the very next day, which was
also investigated into by the same Officer of Economic Offences Wing i.e
Lakhvir Singh. Both the parties stayed in Canada and thereafter, some
differences arose between them. A divorce petition was filed and it was
allowed by the Superior Court of Justice in Canada on 28.03.2011. The
said judgment has not been challenged so far by the daughter of the
complainant. Thereafter, on coming to India, the petitioner came to know
about pendency of the complaint registered against him. As per case of the
petitioner, it was a love marriage and no dowry was given at the time of
marriage. It is also not disputed that the daughter of the complainant
remained in the company of the petitioner in India and the complaint was
filed by respondent No.2 on the basis of statement made by him. A detailed
inquiry was conducted by SP(D), Fatehgarh Sahib and nothing was found
in the allegations qua other family members of the petitioner They were
declared innocent and the challan was presented against the present
petitioner only. The veracity of allegations made in the complaint have
already been investigated into and the complaint was filed. The present
FIR has been registered by the complainant after grant of the divorce and
that judgment of divorce has not been challenged by his daughter.
Certain parameters/grounds have been laid down in Ch.
Bhajan Lal’s case (supra) for exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C
to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or to secure the ends of
justice :-
“1. Where the allegations made in the First Information
Report or the complaint, 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.
Crl. Misc. No.M-28778 of 2014 5
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 not 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 a 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 a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding 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.”
The case was adjourned on the request of learned State
counsel as the factum of divorce was to be ascertained by the Investigating
Officer. In spite of granting various opportunities, the same has not been
verified so far. Respondent no.2 has not appeared to contest his case in
Crl. Misc. No.M-28778 of 2014 6
spite of issuance of notice to him.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to
show anything as to whether the judgment of divorce has been challenged
by daughter of the complainant. The present FIR is not only the misuse of
process of law but the same has been lodged just to harass the petitioner,
whereas, the divorce has already been granted and daughter of the
complainant is residing in Canada. The petitioner has also been stated to
be settled in Canada along with his family members but because of the
present FIR, he is presently staying in India. The case of the petitioner falls
within the parameters as laid down in Ch. Bhajan Lal’s case (supra).
Moreover, all allegations were inquired into by the Investigating Agency and
the complaint was filed after recording the statement of the complainant.
How the second complaint, containing similar allegations, is maintainable,
has not been mentioned by learned counsel for the respondent-State while
opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Even
from bare perusal of contents of the allegations, it appears that no offence
under Sections 406, 420, 498-A and 201 IPC is made out against the
petitioner. Moreover, on the same set of allegations, the other family
members of the petitioner were found to be innocent during investigation.
In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and FIR
No.71 dated 23.07.2011 registered under Sections 406, 420, 498-A and
201 IPC at Police Station Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib qua
petitioner-Manjit Singh Shahi is quashed.
(DAYA CHAUDHARY)
24.02.2016 JUDGE
