Allowed

Piara Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Feb 2011CRM-M/27326/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashing the FIR and subsequent proceedings against the petitioner. The court held that the FIR was an abuse of process lodged to harass the petitioner and pressure his granddaughter to withdraw criminal proceedings in the USA, with no specific allegations against him. The FIR was misnamed and did not disclose a cognizable offence.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed and the FIR No.170 dated 19.10.2007 under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC and all subsequent proceedings are quashed qua the petitioner.

Piara Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-27326 of 2008

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No.M-27326 of 2008 Date of Decision: 03.02.2011

Piara Singh

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶11

Present:Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶13

Mr. Rajbir Wasu, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶14

¶15

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶16

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶17

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

¶18

¶19

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.

¶20

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying for quashing of FIR No.170 dated 19.10.2007 registered at Police Station Division No.2, Jalandhar under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC as the Punjab Police seeks to investigate the offences committed by a citizen of United States of America in United States of America, which is beyond their territorial jurisdiction and is not permissible in law, by virtue of Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶21

Brief facts of the case are that the marriage took place between grand-daughter of the present petitioner and son of the

¶22

Crl. Misc. No.M-27326 of 2008

¶23

¶24

complainant on 04.02.2007. Immediately, after the marriage ceremony, Rupinder Kaur remained in India, while her mother Kulwant Kaur and brother Jatinder Singh went back to United States. Rupinder Kaur resided with her husband Harkaramvir Singh, who is the son of the present complainant, at his house at 220/10 Krishna Nagar, Jalandhar till 19.07.2007, before both of them left for United States of America for a period of almost five months. It is alleged that Rupinder Kaur was subjected to lot of cruelty and harassment at the hands of her in-laws. Since, she was resident of United States of America and came India only for her marriage and was alone in India at the mercy of her in-laws, she continued to bear the atrocities silently. Finally, she returned to United States. On her returning to United States of America, she lodged a complaint to the relevant authorities regarding the atrocities which were committed on her by the son of the complainant and his family. The United State Authorities enquired into the matter. He was arrested. They confiscated the luggage of the complainant’s son, whereas, the allegations in the FIR are that the grand-daughter of the petitioner took all the articles of the complainant’s son including two briefcases, containing clothes, original certificates and 2000 dollars on her arrival at Denver in United States.

¶25

While praying for quashing of the FIR qua the present petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that ;

¶26

(a) The Punjab Police at Jalandhar cannot enquire into an offence which has allegedly been committed in United States of America.

¶27

(b) The FIR, in question, has been registered only to harass the petitioner and his wife, who are the grand-parents of Rupinder Kaur and are residing in India. Subsequently to the registration of the FIR, in question, the present petitioner along with his wife Satwant kaur was

¶28

Crl. Misc. No.M-27326 of 2008

¶29

¶30

arrested on 26.10.2007 and remained in jail till they were granted bail by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. The said FIR has been lodged so as to pressurize Rupinder Kaur to withdraw proceedings, which have been initiated against the son of the complainant at her instance and are still pending before the authorities in United States of America.

¶31

(c) Even as per the enquiry report (P-2), the allegations have not been established and in spite of that the cancellation report has not been submitted till date. The entire family has been enroped in.

¶32

Learned counsel for the respondent, as well as the respondent, who were present in the Court, vehemently opposed the present petition and stated that the matter is at the stage of investigation and challan has not yet been submitted. It is further contended that the present petition is an attempt by the petitioner to stifle and thwart the prosecution and to short circuit the trial. The allegation is that the accused conspired in Jalandhar to get Harkaramvir Singh arrested in a false case first in Germany and then in Washington and his wife Rupinder Kaur in furtherance of the conspiracy took all his luggage, certificates, valuables and 2000 dollars.

¶33

Heard.

¶34

Admittedly, the present petitioner is the grand-father of Rupinder Kaur. Rupinder Kaur is married to the son of the complainant. Both Rupinder Kaur and the son of the complainant are residing separately in United States of America. The entire dispute took place in United States of America. Rupinder Kaur filed the complaint in USA against the son of the complainant. Even the allegation that Rupinder Kaur took away the articles belonging to the son of the complainant was allegedly in United

¶35

Crl. Misc. No.M-27326 of 2008

¶36

¶37

States of America.

¶38

It is apparent from the above that the FIR has been lodged in India only for the purpose of putting pressure on the present petitioner to force his grand-daughter to withdraw the complaint against the son of the complainant who has absolutely no role in the entire controversy. The present petitioner, who is the grand-father, is the only close relative in India. As such, he has been enroped in the said FIR. The story put forward also appears to be improbable. Even if it is accepted to be true, the fact is that there is absolutely no specific allegation against the petitioner. The allegation that Rupinder Kaur had handed over her jewellery to Piara Singh, the present petitioner, does not make out an offence. Piara Singh is her grand-father. She can always hand over her istridhan to her grandfather for safe custody. The allegation of Sections 406 and 420 IPC under no circumstances can be made out against the petitioner. Enroping the petitioner by involving Section 120-B IPC is too far fetched, vague and totally improbable on the face of it. Moreover, the petitioner was arrested. The matter was investigated into by the Superintendent of Police, City-I, Jalandhar and the enquiry report to this effect was submitted vide P-2. No allegation was substantiated. The entire family of Rupinder Kaur have been erred as an accused.

¶39

Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others reported as 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335, laid down the category of cases by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under 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 and gave exhaustive list of cases wherein such power should be exercised. The same read as under :-

¶40

(1) Where the allegations made in the first

¶41

Crl. Misc. No.M-27326 of 2008

¶42

¶43

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.

¶44

(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 with the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶45

(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.

¶46

(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.

¶47

(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.

¶48

(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.

¶49

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly

¶50

Crl. Misc. No.M-27326 of 2008

¶51

¶52

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.

¶53

The facts of the present case are covered by more than one

¶54

category. The allegation, as alleged, do not make out an offence either under Section 406 of 420 IPC as there is neither any misappropriation on the part of the present petitioner nor there is any wrong intention evident. As such, the facts are covered by Category 1 above.

¶55

The allegations in the report do not even disclose a cognizable offence qua the petitioner. As such, the same is covered under both categories 2 and 3 as above.

¶56

The allegation that conspiracy took place in India and spread into three different countries is highly improbable and, therefore, squarely covered under Category 5 above. Admittedly, the complaint has been lodged against the son of the complainant in America on account of his misbehaviour and acting with cruelty by the grand-daughter of the present petitioner. The present FIR has, therefore, been lodged against the present petitioner only for the purpose of harassing and putting pressure in order to force the grand-daughter of the complainant to withdraw her complaint in America. As such, the same is squarely covered under Category 7 as above.

¶57

There is no doubt that a note of caution has been given that criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. Since, the allegations in the present FIR squarely fall under the category of cases as formulated above, it calls for the exercise of extraordinary or inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR itself.

¶58

Since the FIR qua present petitioner is being quashed on

¶59

Crl. Misc. No.M-27326 of 2008

¶60

¶61

merits, the question of jurisdiction is not being adjudicated upon.

¶62

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the FIR No.170 dated 19.10.2007 registered at Police Station Division No.2, Jalandhar under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC, as well as, all the subsequent proceedings are quashed qua the present petitioner being a misuse of process of law.

¶63

03.02.2011 gurpreet

¶64

(NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE

Piara Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Piara Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gram Panchayat Vs Mahender etc.

Urinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Pb. and Ors.

Supreet Kaur & Ors. Vs Ssp Amritsar

Jaipal and Ors. Vs Chandigarh Administration and Ors.

Ram Mehar & Ors. Vs Hseb & Ors.

Hans Raj Singh Barak Vs Union of India & Ors.