Criminal Misc. No. 71487-M of 2006 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh ****** Criminal Misc. No. 71487-M of 2006 Date of Decision: 01.7.2008 Dr. Atul Bansal .... Petitioner vs The State of Haryana and another .... Respondents Before: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Shri Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate, with Shri Gaurav Hooda, Shri Alok Jain and Ms. Preeti Khanna, Advocates, for the petitioner. Shri Navneet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent no. 1. Shri Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. *** Rajesh Bindal J. 1. The prayer in the present petition is for quashing of FIR No.111 dated 12.03.2005, registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 376(2G), 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station City, Rohtak, against the petitioner and his other family members. The quashing is prayed for only by the petitioner, the husband of respondent No.2/complainant. 2. From the facts on the record, it transpires that the main parties to the dispute i.e the petitioner as well as respondent No.2/complainant after getting a decree of divorce in England are residing in England and the present litigation is being fought by their family members residing in India, as their attorneys. 3. Briefly, the facts as are evident from the pleadings on record are that the marriage of the petitioner was settled with respondent No.2, in response to an advertisement on the Web site issued by respondent No.2/complainant. At that time the respondent No.2 was a divorcee, residing in England with Medical Management as her qualification. The petitioner, who is doctor by profession is also settled in England. One of the close relative of respondent No.2/complainant, is also residing in England and with his intervention, the marriage was settled. Initial ceremony was Criminal Misc. No. 71487-M of 2006 -2- held in England on February 14, 2004. Thereafter, as per the allegations, the marriage was solemnized at Rohtak on June 02, 2004. On July 02, 2004, the couple left for England and respondent No.2/complainant came back to India on March 03, 2005. The first information report came to be recorded with various allegations including harassment, demand of dowry and even the allegation of sexual harassment against the father of the petitioner on March 12, 2005. Thereafter, respondent No.2/complainant again left for England and is presently residing there. Both the parties are fighting present litigation in India in various courts through their attorneys. The prayer in the present petition is for quashing of FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on behalf of the petitioner/ husband. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised two fold arguments, namely-that the courts in India do not have the jurisdiction to entertain and try the dispute, as no cause of action as alleged in the FIR, has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the courts in India; secondly- even if for arguments sake it is considered that the courts in India have the jurisdiction still from a plain reading of the contents of the FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioner. 5. To buttress the contention, the learned senior counsel submitted that admittedly at the time of engagement both the parties were living in England, the Sagun ceremony was solemnized in England. It was only a small get together which was held at Rohtak. Though the marriage is stated to be solemnized at Rohtak on June 2, 2004, however, the parties got married again in England on October 27, 2004 showing themselves to be bachelors. A copy of an entry of marriage pursuant to the Marriage Act, 1949 (In England), has been placed on the record as Annexure P-3. A perusal of the certificate, Annexure P-3, shows that the date of marriage was mentioned as July 28, 2004. Admittedly, on that date, the parties were not in India as they had already left for England on July 04, 2004. Further, it is submitted that the fact that respondent No.2/ complainant, was already a divorcee, is evident of the fact that that she could not settle herself even in her first matrimonial home. From the allegations, all that can be inferred is that there were temperamental differences between the parties because of which they could not settle in the matrimonial home. Even in the FIR, there are no specific allegations against the petitioner. The same are quite general Criminal Misc. No. 71487-M of 2006 -3- in nature. As is evident, the FIR has been got drafted from a legally trained mind, levelling allegations against each of the family members though vague in nature. 6. Further, it is submitted that in fact in a divorce petition filed by the complainant/respondent No.2, in England on August 08, 2005, a decree of divorce has already been passed by the High Court of Justice, Principal Registry of the Family Division on July 27, 2006 in terms of Section 42 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act, 1984 (England). By virtue of the order dated July 27, 2006 (Annexure P-11), the preliminary decree of divorce passed on February 9, 2006 was made absolute and the marriage was dissolved. Inspite of the fact that the marriage between the parties had already been dissolved, still the prosecution is sought to be continued which is only with a view to harass the petitioner and his other family members. 7. Still further, the submission is that the falsification of the stand taken by the respondent no.2/complainant, in the FIR is evident from the fact that there are contradictions in the statement made by her at various stages, where she has tried to improve the allegations. Further, respondent No.2 is even guilty of concealment of facts in court in England. At the time of filing of divorce petition it was specifically mentioned by her that there are no proceedings continuing in any country outside England in respect of the marriage between the parties. This statement was made at the time of filing of the petition for divorce on August 08, 2005. In addition to this, it was mentioned in the divorce petition that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on July 28, 2004 in England, whereas prior to the date of filing of petition for divorce in England, respondent No.2/complainant, had already got the impugned FIR registered against the petitioner and his family members on March 12, 2005. And as per allegations in the FIR the marriage was solemnised at Rohtak on June 2, 2004. 8. In fact, respondent No.2 is sailing in two boats at the same time. Firstly, on the basis of alleged marriage which was solemnized at Rohtak on June 02, 2004, the impugned FIR was got registered against the petitioner and his family members under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, on March 12, 2005 whereas on the basis of marriage solemnized in England on July 28, 2004, independent proceedings were initiated in England where even divorce was also granted. Still further, the Criminal Misc. No. 71487-M of 2006 -4- submission is that the vindictive attitude of the family is evident from the conduct of respondent No.2/complainant who filed a complaint for professional mis-conduct before the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council, London, against the petitioner where she stated that the complainant was married with the petitioner on June 24, 2004 and thereafter she was being maltreated and there was demand of dowry as well. However, on investigation by the General Medical Council, the material furnished by respondent No.2/complainant, was not found to be sufficient with regard to any professional misconduct on the part of the petitioner. 9. With a view to take the arguments to the logical end, it was submitted that the entire dispute between the parties, after the filing of the divorce petitioner by respondent No.2/complainant, in England was settled by way of compromise arrived at between the parties in the presence of respectable on September 11, 2005 (Annexure P-8) in which it was agreed that all the cases between the parties shall be withdrawn and the parties will move for divorce by mutual consent. The petitioner was to give a cheque of pounds 16000 in London and a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- at Sonipat. The remaining dowry articles were stated to be with respondent No.2/complainant or were lying deposited in the Police Station, which respondent No.2/complainant was at liberty to take. However, even this compromise was also not honoured by the complainant/ respondent No.2, and the effort of the respondent No.2 is mainly to harass the petitioner and his family members inspite of the fact that the parties have already separated. 10. It is not disputed by the petitioner that a cheque of 16000 pounds was deposited by the uncle of respondent No.2 in the account of the petitioner in England which money was not even touched by the petitioner and is still lying there and number of times it was stated by the petitioner that the same can be taken back by the respondent No.2. 11. Another self contradictory stand taken by respondent No.2/complainant is regarding her visit to India. In the FIR, the statement is that it was at the asking of the petitioner that respondent No.2 came to India to live with his parents on March 03, 2005. However, in the complaint before the General Medical Council, Anexure P-6, the statement was that in the end of August 2004 the petitioner told the complainant that he had his Criminal Misc. No. 71487-M of 2006 -5- job in Birmingham for four weeks and was leaving for that place. When the complainant did not come to know the whereabouts of her husband, on inquiry from her in-laws (the parents of the petitioner), she came to know that the petitioner was in India. It was in terms of this information that the complainant went to India to sort out the differences. 12. Similar is the submission with regard to the allegations regarding petitioner's pressing respondent No.2/complainant to get her hair cut and get them dye. In the divorce petition, it was mentioned that it was around August 14, that the petitioner forced the complainant to cut her hair and get the same coloured, whereas, in the supplementary statement recorded before the police on June 22, 2005 it was stated that when the parties were to go to London in July, 2004 immediately after the marriage, the petitioner took the complainant to get her hair cut against her wish and also get the same coloured with red and green. All these contradictions clearly established that the story put up by respondent No.2/complainant, is totally false, fabricated and concocted. 13. As far as the allegations regarding entrustment of dowry articles and demand of dowry, against the petitioner is concerned, it is submitted that Sagun ceremony was admittedly held in England. As far as the marriage is concerned, there are two different stands. One is that the marriage was solemnized on June 02, 2004 at Rohtak, whereas as per the version of the complainant/ respondent No.2, the marriage was solemnized in England on July 28, 2004. The alleged demand and deposit of a sum of Pounds 16000 in the account of the petitioner also took place in England., Even the false and concocted allegations regarding harassment of the complainant at the hands of the petitioner, are also in England. It is only a bald allegation made in the first information report that a necklace worth Rs. One Lakh was handed over to the petitioner at the time of marriage. Otherwise no other dowry article was handed over to him. Even this allegation in the FIR is patently false on the face of it, for the reason that the petitioner was to do nothing with the diamond necklace as the same was to be used and worn by respondent No.2/complainant, only. Reliance has been placed upon Y.Abraham Ajith and others vs Inspector of Police Chennai and another 2004(8) SCC 100, Anil Kumar vs Rita Kumari 1999(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 813, Anju Bala and others vs State of Punjab and another 2006 Criminal Misc. No. 71487-M of 2006 -6- (3) RCR (Criminal) 191, B.S.Joshi and others vs State of Haryana and another AIR 2003 SC 1386 and Sushil Kumar Sharma vs Union of India and others 2005 (6) SCC 281. 14. In response to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent no.2/complainant submitted that the marriage was solemnized at Rohtak only and it was merely got registered in England. He further submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner in the FIR. When the matter is under investigation, this court should not exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction to quash the FIR. For that reliance has been placed upon State of Karnataka and another vs Pastor P.Raju 2006(3) RCR (Criminal) 859. As part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of court at Rohtak, the case set up by the petitioner that the FIR and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioner are not liable to be quashed because of lack of territorial jurisdiction, has no legs to stand. However, the facts stated in the marriage certificate regarding the parties being bachelor on the date when the marriage was solemnized in England and further the fact that the allegations regarding maltreatment and demand of dowry against the petitioner being in England after the parties had left India on July 04, 2004 and further the demand and deposit of 16000 pounds in England could not be disputed as the same are borne out from the statements made by the complainant herself at various stages. The only contention was regarding handing over of Diamond Set worth Rs. one lakh to the petitioner at the time of marriage. The prayer is for dismissal of the petition as no case for quashing of FIR is made out. 15. The learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner should not be heard on merits, as after the grant of pre-arrest bail, he left India without permission. 16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on the record, I find this to be a fit case where this Court should exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction to come to the rescue of the petitioner who is sought to be harassed in a proxy war by respondent No.2/ complainant. Admittedly before marriage, after marriage and even after a decree of divorce was passed by the court of competent jurisdiction in England, both the petitioner and respondent No.2/complainant are living in Criminal Misc. No. 71487-M of 2006 -7- England. It is only because the laws in India are more stringent and tilt in favour of the women, the same are sought to be misused by respondent No.2/ the complainant and his family members to settle the scores with the petitioner and his family members. Respondent No.2 has even gone to the extent of levelling allegation of rape against the father of the petitioner in the FIR. Though in her statement before the Profession Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council, it was stated that the father of the petitioner had assaulted her. However as this issue is not under consideration before this Court, in the present petition, the father of the petitioner being not the petitioner before this Court, no opinion is being expressed thereon. 17. A plain reading of the FIR shows that the entire allegations run only against the parents of the petitioner regarding demand of dowry before the marriage. Admittedly, Shagun ceremony was solemnized in England on February 14, 2004. After the bald allegation that the gold ornaments of the complainant were entrusted to all the accused, specific allegations were sought to be made that one Diamond Set worth Rs. One Lakh was entrusted to the petitioner, whereas the others were entrusted to the parents in law and sister in law. There is no reason as to why the gold ornaments belonging to the complainant were entrusted to different persons in part. Still further the only bald allegation is that the entire istri-dhan which was given at the time of marriage was kept by the parents and sister of the petitioner, when the petitioner along with the complainant left for England. 18. Further from the facts on record it is clear that in the case in hand the complainant is indulging in forum hopping. It is not disputed that marriage of the parties was solemnized at Rohtak on June 2, 2004. Thereafter, again the marriage was solemnized in England on July 28, 2004. When the parties could not settle in their matrimonial home, the respondent no.2/complainant filed application for dissolution of marriage in the High Court of Justice, Principal Registry of the Family Division, England, where a decree of divorce was passed on July 7, 2006 and the marriage between the parties was dissolved. When issue came regarding filing of complaint against the petitioner and his family members, the provisions of IPC were sought to be relied upon and impugned FIR was got registered at Rohtak on March 12, 2005, stating that the marriage between the parties was solemnized at Rohtak, whereas in the divorce petition filed in England, it Criminal Misc. No. 71487-M of 2006 -8- was stated that the marriage between the parites was solemnized in England. With a view to ensure that jurisdiction of the court in England is not ousted in the divorce proceedings, respondent No.2/complainant even concealed the factum of the impugned FIR already pending in India out of the matrimonial dispute between the parties, in the petition filed for divorce in England. 19. It is further evident that a compromise was arrived at between the parties on September 11, 2005 which was reduced into writing (Annexure P-8), however, as per the assertion of the petitioner the same was resiled by the respondent no.2/complainant with an intention to harass the petitioner. The contents of the compromise are extracted hereunder:- “Today i.e. 11.9.2005, a Panchayat was convened regarding the matrimonial dispute between the children of Shri Mukesh Kumar and Shri Surinder Kumar at the residence of Attar Singh and both the parties have entered into a compromise. Both the parties will be bound by the following conditions:- 1. The divorce will be given with the mutual consent of boy and girl. 2. All the cases would be withdrawn. 3. The boy would give the cheque of Punds 16000 in London and would give Rs. 11,00,000/- in Sonepat. The remaining articles are with the girl and are lying deposed in Police Station and the girl would get the same. Shri Bhagwan Dass and Shri Satpal Mor would be responsible on behalf of party from Narwana and Attar Singh would be responsible for the party of Rohtak.” 20. In reply to para 11 of the petition where the averments regarding the compromise have been made by the petitioner, the factum of compromise was admitted. However, it was stated that it was the petitioner who had failed to fulfill the conditions laid down in the compromise. For that reason only the compromise could not be given effect to. Before this Criminal Misc. No. 71487-M of 2006 -9- court, the definite stand of the petitioner was that he was always ready and willing to adhere to the terms of the compromise and even still ready. 21. Other undisputed facts on record are that the parties have already separated by way of a decree of divorce passed in England. Further as is evident from the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge- I, Rohtak, on March 3, 2005, the value of the dowry articles had already been recovered from the complainant's father-in-law after his arrest on March 12, 2005. As regards 16000 Pounds deposited in the account of petitioner by the uncle of the complainant is concerned, the stand of the petitioner before this court throughout had been that he has not touched that amount ever. The amount is still lying deposited in his account and he is ready and willing to return the same to the complainant or her uncle at any time. Even at the time of hearing of the present case also the same stand was reiterated. 22. In view of the above discussion, in my opinion, the continuance prosecution of the petitioner in the present case even after the matter was compromised between the parties is nothing else but abuse of process of law, especially in a case where the petitioner and his divorced wife are living in England and only the present litigation is going on in India. 23. Accordingly, the impugned FIR No.111 dated 12.03.2005, registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 376(2G), 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station City, Rohtak, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner. However, the same shall be subject to the fulfillment of the conditions as laid down in compromise/settlement (Annexure P-8), in terms of which the petitioner was liable to return 16000 Pounds to the respondent no.2/complainant and pay another sum of Rs.11 lacs at Sonepat to the parents of the respondent no.2/complainant. The respondent no.2/complainant shall be entitled to get the possession of dowry articles lying in the police custody in terms of the compromise. Needful be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 24. The petition is disposed of in the terms indicated above. 01.7.2008 (Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge