Allowed

Sumandeep Kaur v. Joginder Singh & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Aug 2012CRM-M/1778/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash a bigamy and cheating complaint. The court quashed the proceedings as the divorce deed's validity should be tested in Civil Court and the complaint suffered inordinate delay.

What did the court decide?

Complaint No.42/1 dated 01.05.2006, summoning order dated 13.03.2010, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

Sumandeep Kaur Vs Joginder Singh & Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No.M-1778 of 2012

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-1778 of 2012 (O&M)

¶5

Date of decision : 29.08.2012

Sumandeep Kaur

...Petitioner

Versus

Joginder Singh and another

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶12

Present: Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶14

Mr. Luvinder Sofat, AAG, Punjab.

¶15

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral)

¶16

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of complaint No.42/1 dated 01.05.2006 titled as “Joginder Singh Vs. Sumandeep Kaur and others” under Sections 420, 494, 109, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC') (Annexure P-1) and summoning order dated 13.03.2010, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Ludhiana (Annexure P-2), and all subsequent proceedings flowing therefrom.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

¶18

CRM No.M-1778 of 2012

¶19

-2-

¶20

petitioner was married to respondent No.1, Joginder Singh, in the year 2000. However, their marriage could not subsist and they formally separated on 27.12.2001, vide Agreement/Divorce deed, Annexure P-3. She also relinquished her legal right to seek maintenance from her husband, respondent No.1. Thereafter, the petitioner remarried with one Saudagar Singh in the year 2002. The learned counsel contends that the complaint, Annexure P-1, was lodged by the complainantrespondent after a long and inordinate delay of about four years, with a mala fide intention to harass the petitioner. The learned counsel further contends that as far as the question of genuineness of the document, Annexure P-3 is concerned, the appropriate remedy for respondentcomplainant was to approach the Civil Court.

¶21

On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the marriage between respondent No.1 and the petitioner still subsists and in spite of that, the petitioner solemnized second marriage.

¶22

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival contentions.

¶23

It is an admitted case of the parties that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1, was solemnized on 07.04.2000, however, they resided together only for a period of seven months. Thereafter, the petitioner left her matrimonial home. As per

¶24

CRM No.M-1778 of 2012

¶25

-3-

¶26

the agreement/divorce deed, Annexure P-3, the parties formally separated on 01.04.2002, and relinquished their rights upon each other. The instant complaint was lodged by the complainant in the year 2006, i.e. after a lapse of about four years from the date of petitioner's second marriage. No explanation has come forth in this regard on behalf of the complainant. The petitioner is residing happily along with her second husband. She has already relinquished her legal rights upon the complainant-respondent No.1.

¶27

As far as the genuineness of the document, Annexure P-3, is concerned, this Court finds force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proper remedy for the complainant was to approach the Civil Court.

¶28

In view of the above discussion, the present petition is allowed; complaint No.42/1 dated 01.05.2006 titled as “Joginder Singh Vs. Sumandeep Kaur and others” under Sections 420, 494, 109, 120-B and 34 IPC (Annexure P-1) and summoning order dated 13.03.2010, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Ludhiana (Annexure P-2); and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed.

¶29

29.08.2012

¶30

atulsethi

¶31

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶32

Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter : Yes / No.

Sumandeep Kaur v. Joginder Singh & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumandeep Kaur v. Joginder Singh & Anr.

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

Ranjit Singh Vs Pb.State

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

Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Punjab

Pritam Singh Vs Jaswinder Singh and Others

Sukhdev Raj Vs Des Raj and Ors.

Prince and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.