Allowed

Anokh Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Jul 2012CRM-M/13298/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an FIR under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. The court held that since the petitioner and resident spouse had settled their disputes and were granted a mutual consent divorce in Canada, continuing criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Quashed FIR No. 39 dated 14.4.2009 under Sections 406/498-A IPC, charge sheet dated 5.12.2009 and all subsequent proceedings.

Anokh Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Crl.Misc.No.M- 13298 of 2011 (O&M)

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

Date of decision : 19 .7.2012

¶5

Crl.Misc.No.M- 13298 of 2011 (O&M)

¶6

Anokh Singh and another

¶7

......Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Punjab and others

¶10

.......Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶12

Present: Mr.Pushpinder Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr.D.S.Paul, DAG, Punjab.

¶14

Mr.P.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5.

¶15

¶16

SABINA, J.

¶17

By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have sought quashing of FIR No. 39 dated 14.4.2009 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 406/ 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Sadar Moga; charge sheet dated 5.12.2009 (Annexure P-2) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No.1 was married to respondent No.5 on 11.2.2008. Thereafter, respondent No.5 reached Canada on 4.4.2009 on the basis of sponsorship of petitioner No.1. Due to matrimonial

¶19

¶20

Crl.Misc.No.M- 13298 of 2011 (O&M)

¶21

differences, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.5 could not live happily as husband and wife and they filed a divorce petition in the Court in Canada. Vide order dated 22.3.2011 (Annexure P-4), the divorce petition was allowed on the basis of mutual consent. Parties had settled all their disputes and hence, FIR in question was liable to be quashed which was lodged by respondent No.4, father of respondent No.5.

¶22

Learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5, on the other hand, has not opposed the petition in view of the settlement arrived at between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.5 and has stated that the FIR in question and all the subsequent proceedings arisen therefrom be quashed.

¶23

The contents of Annexure P-4 read as under:-

¶24

“1. The parties have not lived together since the Claimant arrived in Canada on April 4, 2009.

¶25

The respondent can approach Immigration Canada to remove the Claimant from his sponsorship undertaking for the one remaining year.

¶26

There is a waiver of a claim for spousal support by the Claimant against the Respondent.

¶27

The Claimant will make her best efforts asking her parents to withdraw all claims in India against the respondent. The claimant will do this before midnight on March 26, 2011 Pacific Daylight time.

¶28

The Claimant has no direct knowledge of the case against the Respondent in India. It was not filed by her

¶29

¶30

Crl.Misc.No.M- 13298 of 2011 (O&M)

¶31

and is so far as statement are attributed to her regarding the claims of the respondent uttering threats, attempting to extort a dowry or committing an assault, such claims are based on hearsay. Any knowledge that the Claimant has the same is based solely on hearsay.

¶32

Any allegations of assault on the Claimant by the respondent are untrue.

¶33

The Claimant will not support the case against the Respondent in India brought by her parents except as she may be compelled to do so under Indian law.

¶34

There will be an original singed order of today’s court and a court certified copy for India.

¶35

There is no order for costs.

¶36

The date of separation between the parties is April 4, 2009.

¶37

The parties agree that they will withdraw their claims and counterclaims and the divorce will proceed as an uncontested desk order divorce.”

¶38

Thus, the parties have settled their dispute. In these circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law and it would be just and expedient to quash the same.

¶39

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 39 dated

¶40

14.4.2009 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 406/ 498-A IPC,

¶41

¶42

Crl.Misc.No.M- 13298 of 2011 (O&M)

¶43

registered at Police Station Sadar Moga; charge sheet dated 5.12.2009 (Annexure P-2) and all the subsequent proceedings

¶44

arising therefrom are quashed.

¶45

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶46

July 19, 2012

¶47

anita

Anokh Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anokh Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilbag Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Mohinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Robert Gaaru Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Sukhdev Singh Vs Harjinder Singh and Ors.

Amarjeet Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Charnajit Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.