Criminal Misc. No. M- 1861 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Criminal Misc. No. M- 1861 of 2011 Date of decision:-04.4.2011 Karanjot Singh Kang and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent 2. Criminal Misc. No. M- 15963 of 2010 Gurjot Singh Kang and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents 3. Criminal Misc. No. M- 3366 of 2011 Gurjot Singh Kang ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. R.K. Chugh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of order of Criminal Misc. No. M- 1861 of 2011 -2- proclamation dated 09.12.2009 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar (Annexure P-7). The FIR was registered against the petitioners. The petitioners had came to India to perform the marriage of Gurjot Singh Kang younger brother of petitioner No.1 and brother-in-law of petitioner No.2, with the complainant- Sukhdeep Kaur. The marriage was solemnized on 09.5.2007 at Village Beas, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. After the marriage, petitionr No.1 left for Canada on 12.5.2007 and petitioner No.2 left for Canada on 21.5.2007. Mohinder Kaur (mother-in-law) also left for Canada on 06.8.2007. The petitioners and Gurjot Singh (husband) at Canada completed the formalities for sponsorship and sent the same to the complainant on 11.6.2007. Thereafter, the complainant left for Canada on 19.10.2007. Due to some misunderstanding, the complainant returned to India on 28.9.2008 with her brother Amandeep Singh, who was residing at Canada. The complainant registered an FIR No.234 dated 10.12.2008 under Section 498-A IPC at Police Station Adampur. On an early occasion complainant filed a complaint against her husband at Canada, which was thoroughly inquired into by the police at Canada, who submitted a detailed report with the finding that no criminal offence has been committed by any member of the family of the petitioners. The petitioners have been declared proclaimed offenders on 12.12.2009 without following the procedure as per Section 182 Cr.P.C. The anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners was dismissed vide order dated 28.4.2010. Counsel for the petitioners has referred to an order dated 06.12.2010 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. No. M-15963 of 2010 whereby Mohinder Kaur (mother-in-law) of the complainant was found innocent as per inquiry report dated 20.11.2010. In view of the inquiry report, FIR against Mohinder Kaur was quashed with all consequential proceedings emanating from FIR No.234 dated 10.12.2008 under Section 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Adampur. It was observed in the order that Criminal Misc. No. M- 1861 of 2011 -3- culpability of petitioner Nos.1,2 and 3 be also looked into on the basis of the FIR registered at the instance of respondent No.2, who had come to India on 27.10.2008 and left India on 30.10.2008. The inquiry report has been submitted by counsel for the State in the Court today, in which the statements of Harpreet Kaur, Rajinder Kaur and Sangat Singh were recorded. Statements of Fakir Singh (grand father of the complainant Sukhdeep Kaur) and Parandeep Singh son of Ravinder Singh have also been recorded. After the detailed inquiry it has been found that Sukhdeep Kaur was never harassed by her husband Gurjot Singh Kang and any member of her in-law family on the ground of demand of any dowry. As per inquiry, Sukhdeep Kaur had applied for going to India from Canada on 11.9.2008 and she herself had purchased the air ticket on 12.9.2008. The dispute between the husband and wife had came into the knowledge of Canadian police on 17.9.2008. As per the proceedings of the Canadian police, initiated on 17.9.2008, no dowry articles were demanded from Sukhdeep Kaur. A Special Power of Attorney had been given to the complainant Sukhbir Kaur by her canadian resident husband Gurjot Singh, Karanjot Singh (elder brother of her husband) of their house No.1537, Sector 42-B, Chandigarh. The allegation of harassment to Sukhdeep Kaur for more dowry does not survive as the power of attorney in respect of a costly house would not have been given to Sukhdeep Kaur. An application was moved by Sukhdeep Kaur in the Court of Canada for getting divorce from Gurjot Singh. There was no allegation of harassment in that application. As per the secret inquiry, Sukhdeep Kaur has solemnized this marriage to go to Canada, at present, she has performed her second marriage in Canada by giving divorce to her husband in a preplanned manner. She had visited India from Canada to register a false dowry case against her husband and other members of the family of husband, in the year 2008. As per report, the culpability of petitioner Nos.1,2 and 3 and allegations levelled by Sukhdeep Kaur Criminal Misc. No. M- 1861 of 2011 -4- against Gurjot Singh Kang, Karanjot Singh Kang and Sukhwinder Kaur wife of Karanjot Singh Kang have not been proved and they have been found innocent. On 23.6.2006 a amendment has been made under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as per Section 82 sub Clause IV, Section 498-A has been excluded for making an order of proclaimed offender. Relies on Mehar Singh and another versus State of Punjab 2010(2) RCR (Criminal) 167 wherein it is held that FIR registered against accused, who were residing in Canada much before registration of case-Accused declared proclaimed offenders- Order set aside- As per Section 82 Cr.P.C. proclamation can be issued against a person if the Court has reason to believe that a person against whom a warrant has been issued has absconded or is concealing himself and that the warrant cannot be executed had not left the country after registration of FIR with a view to abscond or conceal themselves-Accused were already residing in Canada- Accused were not attempted to be served in Canada. Counsel for the petitioners states that in proceedings initiated under Section 498-A IPC for non-appearance, the accused cannot be declared as proclaimed offenders. In the present case, the petitioners have been declared proclaimed offenders on 17.4.2010 (Annexure P-7), the FIR was registered on 10.12.2008. Petitioner No.1 left for Canada on 12.5.2007 and petitioner No.2 left for Canada on 21.5.2007. In view of the law laid down in Mehar Singh and another versus State of Punjab (supra) they could not be declared proclaimed offenders and in view of the fact that they are not properly served as contemplated under Section 82(2) Cr.P.C. order declaring them proclaimed offenders is liable to be set aside. In view of the detailed inquiry report, the petitioners have been found innocent and this Court has no hesitation to quash the FIR No.234 dated 10.12.2008 under Section 498-A IPC registered at Police Station Adampur with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. Criminal Misc. No. M- 1861 of 2011 -5- Ordered accordingly. April 04, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE