Crl.M. No. M-29066 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M. No. M-29066 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 01.10.2010 ... Amita Barmi and another ................Petitioners vs. State of Punjab and another .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Amit Kumar Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners ... K.C. Puri, J. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 212 dated 3.8.2009 (Annexure P-16), under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC registered at Police Station City Sangrur, Sangrur. The petitioners are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the daughter of the complainant. The complainant moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for directing Police Station City Sangrur to register a case against the present petitioners and Ardaman Singh – husband of the daughter of the complainant. It is alleged that marriage between Ardaman Singh s/o Tejinder Singh was solemnized on 31.1.2007. It is alleged that on 27.6.2006, all the accused named above, alongwith Ritu who is daughter-in-law of Crl.M. No. M-29066 of 2010 -2- Tejinder Singh came at the complainant's house at Sangrur and all ceremonies i.e. Roka, Shagun were performed. The accused demanded ` 5 lacs in cash. The complainant spent an amount of ` 18 lacs on the marriage. After Anand Karaj ceremony, complainant alongwith other relatives came back to the banquet hall, where marriage party was organized. Mother-in-law namely, Amita Barmi told the complainant that you have to send ` 10,00,000/- at Melbourne (Australia). There are other specific allegations against both the petitioners and the husband in the FIR. The petitioners have sought quashing of the FIR No. 212 dated 3.8.2009 mainly on the ground that petitioners are Australian citizens and no case can be registered against them. I have considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission. The petitioners in the petition itself have given their residence at that of Gurdwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. It has been further mentioned in paragraph No. 1 of the petition that petitioners are senior citizens of India and hence competent to invoke the inherent extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Otherwise also it is the matter of evidence that whether the petitioners are residents of Australia. From the perusal of the FIR prima facie ingredients of offence under Sections 506, 498-A IPC are made out. This Court can only interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C. if the FIR does not disclose the commission of offence. So, in view of the above discussion, the petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. Crl.M. No. M-29066 of 2010 -3- However, it is made clear that nothing observed in this petition shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The trial Court shall decide the case in accordance with law. ( K.C. Puri ) 01.10.2010 Judge chugh