Allowed

Tipinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Nov 2012CRM-M/14779/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR registered under Sections 406, 498-A and 120-B of IPC. The Court held that continuation of proceedings was an abuse of process given the breakdown of marriage and respondent's remarriage.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 81 dated 20.6.2009 and all subsequent proceedings arising thereunder under Sections 406, 498-A and 120-B IPC were quashed.

Tipinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-14779 of 2012 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-14779 of 2012 (O&M)

¶5

Date of decision: 5.11.2012

Tipinder Singh

......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶10

.......Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶12

Present: Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate and Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Roopam Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab.

¶14

Mr.G.B.S.Dhillon, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶15

¶16

SABINA, J.

¶17

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 81 dated 20.6.2009 under Section 406, 498-A, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Raikot, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-2) and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

¶18

The case of the complainant Kulwinder Kaur, in brief, is that she was married to Tipinder Singh on 29.1.2001. At the time of

¶19

Crl. Misc. No. M-14779 of 2012 (O&M)

¶20

¶21

her marriage, sufficient dowry articles were given by her parents. The complainant had come from Hongkong and after marriage she had returned back to Hongkong after one month. Thereafter, Tipinder Singh also went to Hongkong. Tipinder Singh as well as his parents had been harassing the complainant on account of insufficient dowry and had been demanding more dowry from her. Complainant was also given beatings by her husband although she had already given more than ` 18,00,000/- to her husband. When the complainant visited India on 16.11.2008, she was not allowed to enter the house by the parents of the petitioner. The dowry articles were not returned to the complainant by the parents of the petitioner.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant was residing in Hongkong and had come to India for marriage purposes. She got married to the petitioner and thereafter, returned back to Hongkong after one month. Petitioner was residing in Hongkong. Respondent No.2 was also residing in Hongkong. Since some differences arose between the petitioner and respondent No.2 , they got a decree of divorce from the Court at Hongkong. Now respondent No.2 had got re-married and was residing with her husband in Hongkong. Complaint in question had been filed by the complainant after seven years of her marriage with the petitioner. The FIR in question had been quashed qua the parents of the petitioner by this Court in CRM-M No.24300 of 2009.

¶23

Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, have opposed the petition.

¶24

Crl. Misc. No. M-14779 of 2012 (O&M)

¶25

¶26

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that during the period of one month when respondent No.2 had stayed in India after her marriage, she had been harassed by the petitioner and his parents

¶27

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed.

¶28

In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335 , the Apex Court has held as

¶29

under:-

¶30

“The following categories of cases can be stated 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, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:-

¶31

(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.

¶32

Crl. Misc. No. M-14779 of 2012 (O&M)

¶33

¶34

(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.

¶35

(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.

¶36

(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 under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶37

(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.

¶38

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned

¶39

Crl. Misc. No. M-14779 of 2012 (O&M)

¶40

¶41

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.

¶42

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.

¶43

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.”

¶44

In the present case, respondent No.2 got married to Tipinder Singh on 29.1.2001 at Raikot, District Ludhiana. Respondent No.2 left for Hongkong after one month of her marriage. Thereafter,

¶45

Crl. Misc. No. M-14779 of 2012 (O&M)

¶46

¶47

petitioner also reached Hongkong. Respondent No.2 moved a divorce petition against the petitioner in the Court at Hongkong ( Annexure P-1). The said petition was allowed on 29.4.2011 (Annexure P-3). Admittedly, respondent No.2 has got re-married to Gaganpreet Singh Dhaliwal at Bassian District Ludhiana. The certificate issued by the Gurudwara Sahib qua their marriage performed on 23.12.2011 is Annexure P-5.

¶48

Complainant-respondent No.2 has alleged in her complaint that she had been harassed by the petitioner and his family members during the period of one month when she had stayed in India. She has further alleged that she had sent ` 5,00,000/- to the petitioner from Hongkong. Thereafter, petitioner also reached Hongkong. As respondent No.2 sponsored the case of the petitioner to enable him to reach Hongkong, it can be presumed that all was well between the petitioner and his wife. It appears that when petitioner reached Hongkong, some differences arose between the couple. Due to this reason, respondent No.2 moved a petition before the court at Hongkong for divorce stating therein that her marriage with petitioner had broken down irretrievably and she could not be reasonable expected to live with the petitioner. After lodging of the present FIR, the parties have got a decree of divorce. Both the parties are residing in Hongkong. FIR qua the parents of petitioner has been quashed by this Court in CRM-M No.24300 of 2009.

¶49

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be

¶50

Crl. Misc. No. M-14779 of 2012 (O&M)

¶51

¶52

nothing but an abuse of process of law. Further now respondent No.2 has got re-married and has, thus, decided to move on in life.

¶53

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 81 dated 20.6.2009 under Section 406, 498-A, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Raikot, district Ludhiana (Annexure P-2) and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶54

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶55

November 05, 2012 anita

Tipinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tipinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Another

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

Barjinder Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab

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

Surjeet Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Mukhtiar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sarika Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Baljeet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.