CRM No. M 991 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 991 of 2009 Date of decision: 20.05.2011 Abhijeet Singh alias Sunny ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. R K Arya, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. J S Brar, AAG, Punjab for the respondent State -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of the FIR No. 95 dated 14.07.2007 under Sections 494, 420, 506, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Kadian, Police District Batala. The present petitioner is the brother of Mandeep Kaur i.e. second wife of Jaswant Singh. The aforesaid FIR has been got registered by Kuldip Kaur, who is the first wife of Jaswant Singh, alleging therein, that Mandeep Kaur, co-accused and sister of the present petitioner has solemnized her marriage with her husband, namely, Jaswant Singh. The only allegation against the present petitioner is that he was also present in CRM No. M 991 of 2009 2 the marriage. While praying for quashing of the aforesaid FIR, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that in fact the sister of the present petitioner i.e. Mandeep Kaur was not aware of the first marriage of Jaswant Singh and that his sister had left the house and solemnized her marriage with Jaswant Singh with her own will and against the wishes of the parents. The State has filed their reply, stating therein, that the petitioner being the real brother of Mandeep Kaur was present in the wedding, therefore, he was a party to the offence. Heard. There is no allegation in the FIR that the petitioner was aware of the first marriage of Jaswant Singh. There is no allegation that the petitioner knowingly or unknowingly arranged the marriage of his sister with the husband of the complainant i.e. Jaswant Singh. As such, even if, the allegations in the FIR are taken to be true, no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out against the present petitioner. Even, the offence under Section 506 IPC is not made out against the present petitioner. This Court in the case of Jaidev Beniwal v. State of Haryana and another reported as 2007(2) RCR (Criminal) 700, while relying on the various judgments concluded that mere allegation against the father of the second wife being present at the time of the marriage cannot be termed to be an abetment to attract the provisions of Section 109 IPC. Para 25 and 26 of the said judgment reads as under:- “25. This Court in the case of Chander Parkash Nagpal v. Hari Singh, reported as 1991 (3) RCR (Crl.) 126 (P&H): 1991 (2) Chandigarh Law Reporter, 261 has observed as follows:- CRM No. M 991 of 2009 3 8. In so far as the other accused excluding Chander Parkash, his second wife Gita and his parents, are concerned, they cannot be said to have abetted the commission of the offence under Section 494 IPC (by Chander Parkash accused), even if it may be assumed for the sake of argument that they were aware of his first marriage with Veena. The mere fact that they participated in the marriage or they accepted some Shagun in the form of Milni etc during the ceremonies of the marriage, cannot lead to the conclusion that they had abetted the commission of the offence by Chander Parkash, accused. In the circumstances of the impugned order, whereby the accused, other than Chander Parkash, Geeta, Ram Baksh and Shielo, have been charged under Section 494 read with Section 109, IPC is held to be improper and unsustainable . However, nothing could be seriously urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the impugned order insofar as the framing of the charge sheet against Chander Parkash and Geeta accused under Section 494 IPC and against Ram Baksh and Shielo under Section 494 IPC read with Section 109 IPC is concerned. Hence, this part of the order is maintained.” The said view was subsequently followed in judgments of Partap Singh and others v. Surjit reported as 1995 (5) AIJ 156 and also Ram Singh v. State of Punjab reported as 1996 (2) RCR 784 (P&H). 26. For the aforesaid reason that even if the allegations in the complaint are taken to be correct, no offence can be said to have been committed by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court, in order to secure the CRM No. M 991 of 2009 4 ends of justice, deems it appropriate to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C to quash the complaint and the consequent summoning order.” Thus, coming back to the present case, even if the allegations in the present case are taken to be true, no offence is made out against the present petitioner who is the brother of Mandeep Kaur and was merely stated to be present in the wedding of Mandeep Kaur with the husband of the complainant. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 95 dated 14.07.2007 under Section 494, 420, 506, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Kadian, Police District Batala and all the subsequent proceedings arising thereof are hereby quashed qua the petitioner. Allowed in the above terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 20.05.2011 mohan