CRM-M-12723-2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH . CRM-M-12723-2013 Date of decision: December 10, 2014 [ENTITY] and another Petitioners VERSUS [ENTITY] and another Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE [ENTITY] Present: Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. [ENTITY], DAG, Punjab. Mr.[ENTITY], Advocate for complainant - respondent no.2. [ENTITY], J.
The present petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT] has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 8 dated 10.09.2012, under [SECTION] [ACT] registered at Police Station NRI, Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-1) along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in the FIR instituted at the behest of respondent no 2. The petitioners are citizens of U.K having migrated there in early 1960's. A matrimonial alliance took place between the son of the petitioners, [ENTITY] and the complainant-respondent no.2 namely [ENTITY] in February, 2004. Immediately after the marriage, the complainant went to U.K on 13.05.2004 after obtaining a marriage Visa. Complainant - respondent no.2 came back to India on several occasions i.e on 13.05.2004, 10.07.2005, 13.09.2006, 21.01.2007 and 13.03.2008. It is submitted that neither complainant maintained a good cordial relationship with her husband [ENTITY] nor with the petitioners resultantly their son filed a divorce petition in India under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. An ex-parte divorce was granted on 29.05.2009 as the respondent no.2 did not appear to contest the said petition. The complainant, thereafter, filed an appeal to have an ex-parte divorce decree set aside. The complainant is currently living in her matrimonial home i.e in the home of the petitioners in Hoshiarpur and as such, FIR No. 8 dated 10.09.2012 under [SECTION] [ACT] registered at Police Station NRI, Hoshiarpur is false and has been filed with the malicious intention of forcing their son [ENTITY] to take her to U.K. as she was deported by the British Government on 25.05.2009. It was also submitted that the respondent no.2 had filed a complaint against the petitioners with Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur alleging mal treatment and taking away of her [ENTITY]. The matter was duly inquired into by the police at the level of Deputy Superintendent of Police, who after inquiry, came to the conclusion that no such incident of mal treatment took place and the dispute was actually civil in nature. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the impugned FIR lodged against them as the same does not reveal any offence under [SECTION] [ACT] and that the FIR is barred by limitation.
Reply has been filed by the [ENTITY], wherein, it has been submitted that respondent no.2 submitted an application on 15.05.2012 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur against the petitioners for an inquiry. The inquiry was marked to Station House Officer, Police Station NRI, Hoshiarpur who conducted a detailed inquiry and found petitioners and others to have committed offence under [SECTION] [ACT]. After the inquiry, the Station House Officer, Police Station NRI, Hoshiarpur sent inquiry report along with papers to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur for further action. The Senior Superintendent of Police obtained a legal opinion from the District Attorney, Hoshiarpur who opined that it was a fit case for registration of a case against the petitioners. Eventually, the Station House Officer, Police Station NRI Hoshiarpur registered FIR No. 8 dated 10.09.2012, under [SECTION] [ACT].
Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent no.2, wherein, it has been contended that the conduct of the petitioners and the husband of respondent no.2 is such that no grounds are made out for quashing of the impugned FIR especially since the challan has already been presented. It is submitted that an ex-parte decree of divorce had been obtained by the complainant's husband by intentionally giving a wrong address. The complainant was residing in U.K at 33 Daventry Road, Cheylesmore Coventry CV3 5D U.K in her husband's home whereas her address in the divorce petition filed in India was shown as 35, Daventry Road, Cheylesmore Coventry CV3 5D U.K. It is only on her return to India that she was informed about the exparte divorce by her relatives. Thereafter, the complainant moved an application to have the exparte decree set aside. It is also pleaded that the husband and his family members made no efforts to ensure a permanent U.K visa and that is why she was deported, and now the petitioners have been demanding money all along to take her back to U.K. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.
Admittedly, respondent no.2 was married to [ENTITY], son of the petitioners. The complainant was deported on account of the fact the visa formalities were not completed. [ENTITY] also obtained an exparte decree of divorce in India by giving wrong address whereas at the time when the divorce case was filed she was living in the house of her husband in England at 33 Daventry Road Cheylesmore Coventry CV3 5D. There are specific allegations in the FIR about the demand of Rs.10,00,000/-. Not only this, there is great harassment meted out to the complainant by the petitioners on account of getting the electricity supply disconnected. A meeting was also convened by the Panchayat, wherein, it was agreed between the petitioners and the respondent no.2, herein, that respondent no.2 would be allowed to live peacefully in the matrimonial home.
Contention that the FIR is barred by limitation under [SECTION] of the [ACT] (for short '[ACT]') is rejected. Complainant has specifically stated that in May 2012, there was a specific demand for a sum of Rs.10, 00,000/- by the petitioners made in order to take her back to England with them.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon certain judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in [PRECEDENT], Priya Vrat Singh and others v. Shyam Ji Sahai 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 940, Girdhar [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT] and Sukhwinder Singh v. [ENTITY] 2000(1) RCR (Criminal) (PH) 46 to contend that the provisions of [SECTION] [ACT] are being mis used and that the FIR should be quashed.
I have gone through the judgments cited above and am of the opinion that they are not applicable to the facts of the present case. There are specific allegations in the FIR regarding the demand of Rs. 10,00,00/- made by the petitioners in order to take her back to England. Moreover a perusal of [SECTION] filed by respondent no.2 shows that petitioner no.1 [ENTITY] had filed a complaint against respondent no.2 before the Punjab State Commission for NRI. In the investigation, it was found that there was no truth in the allegations filed by [ENTITY] against [ENTITY], respondent no.2 regarding breaking of locks of the residential house and that the said application has only been moved to set up defense in the impugned FIR No. 8 of 10.09.2012.
In order to attract the offence under [SECTION] it would have to be proved that the wife/ complainant was subjected to cruelty which could include mental cruelty. Whether the conduct was such as to cause grave injury or danger to the mental health of the complainant are all matters to be examined only after the detailed evidence is led by the prosecution. At this stage, when a prayer is made for quashing of the criminal proceedings, this Court is not expected to go through the evidence in great detail and determine whether in fact all the ingredients of the offence as set out under [SECTION] are actually made out or not.
In view of the above, no interference is called for in the present petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
Any observation made herinabove will have no bearing on the merits of the case before the Trial Court.
([ENTITY]) JUDGE December 10, 2014 'mamta