Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-2161 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-2161 of 2009 Date of Decision : 17th October, 2011 Ravinder Kaur and others .... Petitioners Versus Narinder Kaur .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. D. S. Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondent. * * * * L.N.MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Ravinder Kaur and five others have filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) for quashing criminal complaint under Sections 452, 323, 355, 506, 342, 354, 148 and 149 IPC Annexure P-1 instituted by respondent-complaint Narinder Kaur against petitioners and summoning order dated 05.05.2008 Annexure P-2 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala, thereby summoning the petitioners as accused for offences under Sections 323, 452, 354, 506, 148 and 149 IPC and all consequent proceedings. It is undisputed that petitioner No.1 Ravinder Kaur was married with Baljit Singh son of respondent Narinder Kaur on 29.01.2003. About 2 months after the marriage, Baljit Singh went abroad. Petitioner No.1 lodged FIR No.40 (wrongly mentioned to be FIR No.41 in the complaint) dated 12.06.2004 under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC with Police Station Ghanie Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-2161 of 2009 -2- Ke Banger (Annexure P-3) against respondent, her husband Joginder Pal Singh, son Baljit Singh, daughters Kanwaljit Kaur and Harpreet Kaur and one Varinder Singh. Petitioners No.2 to 4 are brothers of petitioner No.1 whereas petitioner No.5 is father of petitioners No.1 to 4. Petitioner No.6 is said to be relative of remaining petitioners and is said to be a police official. Case of the respondent-complainant in the impugned complaint is that on 08.07.2006 at about 5.30 pm, all the accused-petitioners formed unlawful assembly and criminally trespassed into the house of respondent- complainant and started abusing her and her husband. They were also accompanied by an Assistant Sub-Inspector of police from Women Cell. The respondent and her husband objected to it. The accused started dismantling articles lying in the house and also manhandled the complainant and her husband. Turban of complainant's husband was also removed whereas clothes of the complainant were torn. They were insulted in the village. Alarm raised by the complainant attracted Surjit Singh and Balbir Singh to the spot. On their intervention, the complainant was saved from the accused-petitioners. The accused also obtained signatures of the complainant on blank papers forcibly. In preliminary evidence, the complainant herself appeared as CW-1 and examined her husband Joginder Pal Singh CW-2 and Balbir Singh CW-3 who broadly stated according to version of the complainant. Learned Judicial Magistrate vide impugned order Annexure P-2 ordered summoning of the petitioners for various offences. Feeling aggrieved, accused have filed the instant petition. None has appeared for the respondent in spite of sufficient wait. In fact, none appeared for the respondent on 08.10.2010 also when the Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-2161 of 2009 -3- case was taken up for hearing. None either appeared for the respondent on 24.02.2010 when the case was admitted for regular hearing and also on many preceding dates of hearing. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned criminal complaint is counter blast to FIR Annexure P-3 lodged by petitioner No.1 against respondent-complaint and her other family members and has been instituted to pressurize petitioner No.1 in the case arising out of the said FIR. It was also contended that no such occurrence as alleged in impugned complaint took place and on the other hand, petitioner No.1 had moved application dated 07.07.2006 Annexure P-4 to Senior Superintendent of Police, Batala. Thereupon Women Cell conducted inquiry on 08.07.2006 and made efforts for rehabilitating petitioner No.1 in the matrimonial home being shared household and both parties had been called by the Women Cell and report Annexure P-5 was submitted by Women Cell. Statement Annexure P-6 of Joginder Pal Singh husband of respondent-complainant was also recorded by ASI Narinder Singh of Women Cell. Efforts of Women Cell to rehabilitate petitioner No.1 in the matrimonial home have been given the shape of alleged occurrence on the basis of which impugned complaint has been filed. It was also contended that respondent's daughter Harpreet Kaur (one of the accused in FIR Annexure P-3) vide order dated 01.08.2005 Annexure P-7, was granted permission by this Court for going to Canada to attend the marriage of her sister-in-law (husband's sister), undertaking to come back on or before 30.09.2005, but she did not return from Canada and has been declared Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-2161 of 2009 -4- proclaimed offender and she also did not attend the marriage of her sister- in-law in Canada as affirmed by her husband Harinder Shergill vide affidavit Annexure P-8. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions. It is undisputed that petitioner No.1 is married with Baljit Singh son of respondent-complainant. It is also mentioned even in the impugned criminal complaint that two months after the marriage, Baljit Singh went abroad and has not yet returned. It is also undisputed that petitioner No.1 has lodged FIR Annexure P-3 against respondent and her other family members. It is thus manifest that the impugned criminal complaint Annexure P-1 is counter blast to FIR Annexure P-3 and has been instituted with oblique motive of pressurizing petitioner No.1 in the case arising out of FIR Annexure P-3. In addition to the aforesaid, it is manifest that petitioner No.1 had, in fact, made application dated 07.07.2006 Annexure P-4 to Senior Superintendent of Police, Batala and thereupon Women Cell called both the parties on 08.07.2006 and even recorded statement Annexure P-6 of respondent's husband on 08.07.2006. It is apparent from the version of respondent in the complaint and version of the petitioners in the instant petition that on 08.07.2006, effort was made with the help of Women Cell to rehabilitate petitioner No.1 in the matrimonial home on the ground of being shared household under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. But the same has been given the colour of alleged occurrence in the impugned criminal complaint. It is significant to notice that even in the impugned complaint, respondent has not alleged that any household article was damaged in the Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-2161 of 2009 -5- alleged occurrence. On the other hand, the allegation is that the accused started dismantling the articles lying in the house. However, no damage or mischief to the household articles has even been alleged in the impugned criminal complaint. No physical injury is either alleged to have been caused to respondent or her husband except that there is allegation of their manhandling by the accused. It would not be out of place to notice that respondent's daughter Harpreet Kaur sought permission in case arising out of FIR Annexure P-3 to go to Canada for a month to attend the marriage of her sister-in-law, undertaking to come back on or before 30.09.2005. Necessary permission was granted by this Court vide order dated 01.08.2005 Annexure P-7 subject to certain conditions. However, Harpreet Kaur had gone to Canada not for attending the marriage of her sister-in-law because she had already severed her marital relations with her husband Harinder Shergill as is manifest from Affidavit Annexure P-8 affirmed by Harinder Shergill. It is also affirmed in the said affidavit that Harpreet Kaur did not attend the marriage of her sister-in-law at all. She did not even contact her husband or his family. Orders Annexure P-9 and P-10 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala in case arising out of FIR Annexure P-3 reveal that Harpreet Kaur has since been declared proclaimed offender in the said case. Thus respondent's daughter has also abused the process of this Court. It is one of the large number of cases where Non-resident Indians solemnize marriages in India with Indian girls and then abandon them and go back abroad. In the instant case also, respondent's son solemnized marriage with petitioner No.1 and then went back abroad just about two months after the marriage. Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-2161 of 2009 -6- For the reasons aforesaid, I find that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioners in impugned criminal complaint which is sheer abuse of process of Court. Inherent power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is required to be exercised in this case by this Court to prevent abuse of process of Court and to secure the ends of justice. All family members of petitioner No.1 have been arrayed as accused in the criminal complaint without any basis, as counter blast to FIR Annexure P-3 lodged by petitioner No.1 against respondent and her family members. As a necessary consequence of the aforesaid discussion, the instant petition is allowed. Impugned criminal complaint Annexure P-1 lodged by respondent against the petitioners and summoning order Annexure P-2 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate and all consequent proceedings arising out of the aforesaid complaint are hereby quashed. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 17th October, 2011 'raj'