Partly allowed

Ramandeep Kaur and Ors. v. Shavinder Singh Gill

Punjab & Haryana HC21 May 2012CRM-M/16400/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed criminal complaint and summoning order against petitioner Nos.3 to 9 (relatives) in a bigamy case. Court held they faced false prosecution with mala fide intent and no evidence showed their active participation in the second marriage or criminal conspiracy.

What did the court decide?

Impugned complaint and summoning order with regard to/qua petitioner Nos.3 to 9 are quashed.

Ramandeep Kaur and Ors. Vs Shavinder Singh Gill — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No. M-16400 of 2009 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No. M-16400 of 2009 Date of Decision:-21.5.2012

¶4

Ramandeep Kaur & Ors. …Petitioners

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Shavinder Singh Gill …Respondent

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶8

Present:Mr.B.P.Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶9

Ms.Pooja Chopra, Advocate for the respondent.

¶10

Mehinder Singh Sullar , J. (Oral)

¶11

The epitome of relevant facts and material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that, complainant Shavinder Singh Gill respondent (for brevity “the complainant”) filed a criminal complaint (Annexure P1) against Ramandeep Kaur (petitioner No.1), Parminder Singh (petitioner No.2), Tarsem Singh and their other relatives (petitioner Nos.3 to 9) for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 494 and 120-B IPC, interalia pleading that his marriage was solemnized with Ramandeep Kaur on 3.11.2003, according to Sikh rites and ceremonies. It was an inter-caste love marriage performed against the wishes of her parents. After the solemnization of the marriage, they started resided together and cohabited as husband & wife till August, 2004. According to the complainant that the accused took his wife on the pretext of death in her parental family. After 15 days when he telephonically requested his wife Ramandeep Kaur to resume cohabitation and to come in the matrimonial home, but she lingered the matter on one pretext or the other.

¶12

The case of complainant further proceeds that inspite of resuming

¶13

CRM No. M-16400 of 2009 -2-

¶14

cohabitation, his wife Ramandeep Kaur again performed her 2^nd marriage with accused Parminder Singh without obtaining any divorce from him (complainant). All the accused persons were stated to have arranged and participated in the 2^nd marriage, knowing fully well that Ramandeep Kaur has not obtained any divorce from the complainant and her 2^nd marriage with Parminder Singh accused was illegal.

¶15

Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the complainant claimed that Ramandeep Kaur accused-petitioner No.1 has illegally performed the 2^nd marriage with Parminder Singh petitioner No.2, without obtaining any divorce, during the subsistence of her 1^st marriage and the remaining accused petitioner Nos.3 to 9 have participated in the 2^nd marriage. Therefore, they have committed the pointed offences. In the background of these allegations, the complainant filed the impugned complaint (Annexure P1) against them.

¶16

Taking cognizance of the complaint and considering the preliminary evidence, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate summoned all the accused to face the trial for the commission of indicated offences, by way of impugned summoning order dated 4.3.2009 (Annexure P2).

¶17

The petitioners-accused did not feel satisfied with the initiation of criminal proceedings against them and preferred the present petition to quash the impugned complaint and summoning order, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC.

¶18

At the very outset, the instant petition with regard to Ramandeep Kaur and Parminder Singh (petitioner Nos.1 and 2) has already been dismissed as withdrawn, as prayed for by their counsel, vide order of even date.

¶19

As regards the remaining petitioners No.3 to 9 is concerned, it was claimed that they have nothing to do with the alleged 2^nd marriage of petitioner

¶20

CRM No. M-16400 of 2009 -3-

¶21

Nos.1 & 2. They are related to them, have been falsely implicated by the complainant and no offence whatsoever is made out against them. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, petitioner Nos.3 to 9 sought to quash the impugned complaint (Annexure P1) and summoning order (Annexure P2) in the manner described hereinbefore.

¶22

The prayer of the petitioners was refuted by the complainant, who has filed the reply, inter-alia taking certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition, cause of action and their locus standi. The 1^st marriage of the complainant was stated to have been solemnized, vide photograph (Annexure R1) and marriage certificate (Annexure R2). Annexure R3 is a copy of the account of Ramandeep Kaur Gill, showing that she was residing in the house of the complainant and they obtained the insurance policy (Annexure R4) as well. Instead of reproducing the entire contents of the reply and in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to say that the respondent has reiterated all the allegations contained in the impugned complaint. However, it will not be out of place to mention here that he has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the main petition and prayed for its dismissal.

¶23

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition, relatable to petitioner Nos.3 to 9, deserves to be accepted in this context.

¶24

Above being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important that, arises for determination in this petition is, as to whether petitioner Nos.3 to 9 are liable to be prosecuted for alleged 2^nd marriage of petitioner Nos.1 & 2 in this respect or not?

¶25

Having regard to the material on record and rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, to me, the answer must obviously be in the

¶26

CRM No. M-16400 of 2009 -4-

¶27

negative.

¶28

As is evident from the record, the complainant claimed that petitioner No.1 solemnized the 2^nd marriage with petitioner No.2 on 12.12.2004 without obtaining divorce from him. Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are the parents, whereas petitioner No.5 is uncle, petitioner No.6 is sister of, Parminder Singh -2^nd husband, whereas petitioner No.7 is mother of Ramandeep Kaur, petitioner No.8 is daughter of petitioner No.3 and petitioner No.9 is brother of Ramandeep Kaur. The only allegation oozing out, from the impugned complaint (Annexure P1) against them is that Ramandeep Kaur (petitioner No.1) performed her 2^nd void marriage with petitioner No.2 and all other accused with criminal conspiracy actively participated and got performed their 2^nd marriage during the life time of the complainant, first husband of Ramandeep Kaur and hence all the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 120-B IPC.

¶29

It is not a matter of dispute that no other overt act or specific role is attributed to petitioner Nos.3 to 9, as to how, when, where and in what manner, they participated in the religious ceremony of alleged 2^nd marriage. In the absence of any allegation/material muchless cogent that petitioner Nos.3 to 9, who are relatives of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, have actively participated in the religious ceremony of 2^nd marriage, to my mind, they cannot be summoned with the aid of hatching a criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC. The complainant appears to have filed a false complaint against them (petitioners Nos.3 to 9), being relatives of petitioner Nos.1 & 2, maliciously and vexatiously in order to wreak vengeance and the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide against them. Such malafide criminal prosecution amounts to deep misuse/abuse of process of law and deserves to be quashed, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604, which was again reiterated in case Som Mittal v.

¶30

CRM No. M-16400 of 2009 -5-

¶31

Government of Karnataka 2008(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 92 . The indicated Bench mark for quashing the criminal prosecution as laid down in the aforesaid judgments are fully attracted to the facts of the present case. Otherwise, if the false prosecution is allowed to continue, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to petitioners No.3 to 9, which is not legally permissible.

¶32

No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties.

¶33

In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the complaint case, relatable to other accused, the instant petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned complaint (Annexure P1) & summoning order (Annexure P2), with regard to/qua petitioner Nos.3 to 9, are hereby quashed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

¶34

Needless to state that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the complaint case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition in this relevant direction.

¶35

(Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge

¶36

¶37

Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No

Ramandeep Kaur and Ors. v. Shavinder Singh Gill

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramandeep Kaur and Ors. v. Shavinder Singh Gill

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Baljeet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jito Bai Vs State of Punjab

Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Ramanjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Mohan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.