Criminal Misc. No. M-19338 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-19338 of 2009 Date of Decision: 18.03.2010 Gurpreet Sidhu son of Sh. Malkiat Singh Sidhu, r/o 7516, Langworthy Driver Mississauga, Ontario, M4T 2R9, through his Special Power of Attorney Sh. Jasdev Singh Brar, Advocate, son of Sh. Harbans Singh, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Sanjeev Manrai, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent – State. SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing FIR No. 21, dated 05.03.07, under Sections 406, 420 and 498-A IPC, Police Station Sadar, Abohar, District Ferozepur, has been filed by Gurpreet Sidhu son of Sh. Malkiat Singh Sidhu, r/o 7516, Langworthy Driver Mississauga, Ontario, M4T 2R9, through his Special Power of Attorney Sh. Jasdev Singh Brar, Advocate, son of Sh. Harbans Singh, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. 2. The facts, in brief, are that, the marriage of the complainant Criminal Misc. No. M-19338 of 2009 2 was solemnized with Gurpreet Sidhu, petitioner, by way of Anand Karj, on 31.03.05, at Sangam Palace, Abohar. Sufficient articles of dowry, alongwith cash amount of Rs. 5 lacs, was given, at the time of marriage of the complainant. It was stated that, in the first instance, soon after the marriage, the complainant and the petitioner, resided together, as husband and wife, at village Chak Ram Singh Wala. It was further stated that Davinder Kaur, elder sister of the complainant, was married, in Canada, and, as such, she applied for her paternal family's sponsorship. Consequently, the complainant, alongwith her parents, went to Canada. It was further stated that, at the time of negotiations, before the marriage, it was settled between the members of the complainant party, on the one hand, and the members of the accused party, on the other hand, that the complainant, might be settled, either in Canada or India. It was further stated that, soon after the marriage, the complainant, was subjected to cruelty, in connection with the demand of more dowry, in shape of Rs. 10 lacs, in cash, and one car, by the petitioner and his co-petitioners (non-applicants), in India. It was further stated that, even the petitioner and his co-petitioners (non-applicants), refused to hand over the 'istri dhan', belonging to the complainant. It was further stated that, the Panchayat, was convened, from time to time, during the stay of the complainant, in India, but the petitioner and his co-petitioners (non-applicants), continued to torture and maltreat her. It was further stated that, thereafter, the accused, pressurized the complainant, to apply for the sponsorship of Gurpreet Sidhu, Criminal Misc. No. M-19338 of 2009 3 petitioner, as a result whereof, he was, ultimately, allowed immigration, by the Canadian Embassy. In the meanwhile, the complainant, also went to Canada. It was further stated that, Gurpreet Sidhu, petitioner, also reached Canada, on 24.10.05, and stayed with the complainant for one or two days. It was further stated that, in Canada, on the asking of his co-petitioners (non-applicants), Gurpreet Sidhu, petitioner, started torturing the complainant both physically and mentally. It was further stated that, one day, Gurpreet Sidhu, petitioner, told the complainant, that he was going, in search of some work, and will be back soon, but, later on, her (complainant's) parents, came to know, that the petitioner alongwith his co-petitioners (non-applicants), played fraud with her, as they wanted him (Gurpreet Sidhu), to settle in Canada, after getting married with her. It was further stated that, Gurpreet Sidhu, petitioner, told the complainant, that now he wanted, to live, in India, and also hand over all the dowry articles, entrusted, at the time of marriage. It was further stated that, on this assurance, the complainant alongwith her parents, came to India, on 31.08.06, but the petitioner, did not turn up. It was further stated that, thereafter, the members of the complainant party, went to the house of the petitioner, in order to take the dowry articles, but in vain. It was further stated that, even the petitioner and his co-petitioners (non-applicants), confessed before the Panchayat, that they had deliberately performed marriage with the complainant, out of greed, and cheat her. Ultimately, the aforesaid FIR, was registered. Criminal Misc. No. M-19338 of 2009 4 3. I have heard the Counsel for the petitioner, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 4. The Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that admittedly, Gurpreet Sidhu, petitioner, who is an accused, in the aforesaid FIR, is residing, in Ontario (Canada). He further submitted that, in Section 482 Cr.P.C., there is no reference to 'person aggrieved'. He further submitted that, if there is abuse of the process of Court, a person, genuinely interested, in the accused, can file a petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that, since the FIR, is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court, Jasdev Singh Brar, attorney of the petitioner, being genuinely interested, in the matter, had locus- standi, and the petition, could be filed, through him, by the petitioner. He further submitted that almost all the alleged offences, were committed in Canada. He further submitted that, since the cause of action, arose within the jurisdiction of Courts, at Canada, the FIR, could not be got registered, in Police Station Sadar Abohar (India). He further submitted that, since the FIR, is an abuse of the process of the Court, the same, is liable to be quashed. 5. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the petitioner, in my considered opinion, the petition, is liable to be dismissed, being not maintainable, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. Admittedly, the aforesaid FIR, was registered, against the petitioner, in Police Station Sadar Abohar, District Ferozepur (India). There is, no dispute, about the factum, that Gurpreet Sidhu, petitioner, is Criminal Misc. No. M-19338 of 2009 5 residing, in Canada. In Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chaudhary and others, JT 1991 (3), SC, 497, it was held, as under:- “Even if there are million questions of law to be deeply gone into and examined in a criminal case registered against specific accused persons, it is for them and they alone to raise all such questions and challenge the proceedings initiated against them at the appropriate time before the proper forum and not for third parties under the garb of public interest litigants. It was further held that the petitioner in that case (H.S. Chaudhary) had no locus standi to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the FIR and all other proceedings arising therefrom on the plea of preventing the abuse of process of the Court. In the above mentioned case the accused persons where alive and were capable of defending themselves and protecting their interests and it was also not shown that the petitioner Mr. H.S. Chaudhary had any particular or special interest in the accused persons.” 6. In Simranjit Singh Mann Vs. Union of India and another, AIR, 1993, SC, 280, the Apex Court, held, as under :- “Ordinarily the aggrieved party which is affected by any order has the right to seek redress by questioning the legal validity or correctness of the order, unless such party is a minor, an insane person or is suffering from any other disability which in law recognized as sufficient to permit any other person e.g. next friend, to move the Court on his behalf. It was also held that if a guardian or a next friend initiates proceedings for and, on behalf of such a disabled aggrieved party, it is, in effect, proceedings initiated by the party aggrieved and not by a total stranger, who has no direct personal stake, in the outcome thereof. In the above mentioned case, a leader of a political party approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Criminal Misc. No. M-19338 of 2009 6 Constitution of India, challenging the conviction and sentence of the assassins of Gen. Vaidya. The two convicts were alive but did not file any appeal against the conviction and sentence. The Apex Court, held that the petitioner, in that case, had no locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution.” 7. The plain reading of the ratio of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, clearly goes to reveal, that it is only the accused person, against whom, a criminal case, has been registered, can file a petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in the High Court, for quashing the FIR, and the subsequent proceedings, and no third person, can fight a proxy war, on his behalf, under the garb of public interest litigant. The aggrieved party, which is affected by an order, is required to seek redress of its grievance, by questioning the legality validity or correctness of the same. It is another thing, if the aggrieved party, is suffering from some disability i.e. unless such party is a minor, an insane person, or is suffering from any other disability, which in law is recognized as sufficient to permit any other person e.g. next friend, to move the Court, on his behalf. On behalf of minor, or insane person, a guardian or a next friend, initiates proceedings, so as to challenge the legality and validity of the order, passed against him, to seek redressal of the grievance, as under law, such a person having disability, cannot be said to be competent, to file a petition, except through next friend or guardian. In the instant case, there is nothing, on the record, that Gurpreet Sidhu, petitioner, is suffering from any disability, recognized by the Criminal Misc. No. M-19338 of 2009 7 provisions of law. He is an accused, in the aforesaid FIR. It is he, who is aggrieved, against the registration of the FIR. It is he, who can challenge the same, on any ground. If, in criminal cases, until and unless, a person aggrieved suffers from some disability, recognized by law, a stranger or some other person, is allowed, to fight the proxy war, then the very purpose of criminal justice system, shall be defeated. In that event, the Courts, would be mushroomed by public interest litigants. In this view of the matter, the present petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioner, through his attorney, is not maintainable. On this ground alone, the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. The Counsel for the petitioner, however, placed reliance, on Rajiv Gandhi Ekta Samiti Vs. Union of India and another, 2000 (2), RCR (Criminal), 579 (Delhi High Court), in support of his contention, that such a petition, could be filed, by the accused, through his attorney, as in Section 482 Cr.P.C., there is no reference to “person aggrieved”. In the first instance, the facts of Rajiv Gandhi Ekta Samiti's case (supra), are distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case, as Rajiv Gandhi, had already died and Rajiv Gandhi Ekta Samiti, petitioner, therein, formed to preach and propagate all over India the principles and ideologies, cherished and expounded by Amar Sahid Rajiv Gandhi, filed the petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for deletion of his name, from column No. 2 of the charge- sheet, filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. This Samiti, was, thus, genuinely interested in seeing the deletion of the name of Amar Criminal Misc. No. M-19338 of 2009 8 Sahid Rajiv Gandhi, from the report, as stated above. Secondly, any principle of law, laid down, in Rajiv Gandhi Ekta Samiti's case (supra), by the Delhi High Court, on the same point, being contrary to the ratio of law, laid down, in Janata Dal's, and, Simranjit Singh Mann's cases (supra), by the Apex Court, shall not hold the field. No help, therefore, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the petitioner, from Rajiv Gandhi Ekta Samiti's case (supra), in support of the proposition, that an accused, can file a petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., through his attorney. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 9. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M-19338 of 2009, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed, being not maintainable, through attorney. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. 10. Registry is directed, to comply with the order, by sending the copies thereof, to the Courts concerned, immediately. 18.03.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE