IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc-M 32705 of 2010 Date of decision: 9.11.2010 Rajinder Singh and ors …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab …Respondent Present: Mr Karamjit Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. S.S.SARON, J. Heard counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners by way of the present petition under Section 482 CrPC, seek quashing of FIR 177 dated 17.9.2004 (P1) registered at PS Payal, Police District Khanna, for the offences under Sections 420, 494 and 120-B IPC as also the order dated 1.8.2005 (P5) whereby the petitioners have been declared as Proclaimed Offenders and all subsequent proceedings. The FIR dated 17.9.2004 (P1) has been registered on the complaint of Gurjant Singh son of Harchand Singh against eight accused including the petitioners. It has been alleged by the complainant that Palwinder Kaur – accused-3 approached the father of the complainant namely Harchand Singh on 16.9.1999 and represented that Hardeep Kaur is unmarried and a NRI; besides, a permanent citizen of Canada. She had stated that in case Harchand Singh wanted to settle his son – Gurjant Singh (complainant) in Canada then she could get the marriage of the complainant solemnized with her daughter – Hardeep Kaur. She demanded Rs 10,00,000/- for the marriage and 1 Criminal Misc – M 32705 of 2010 to settle the complainant in Canada. The father of the complainant stated that he is ready to solemnize the marriage and also ready to pay Rs 10,00,000/- after seeing Hardeep Kaur. On 19.9.2009, Palwinder Kaur along with Hardeep Kaur and Rajbir Singh (accused-4) came at the Farmhouse of Gurprem Singh at Bukkanwala Road, Purana Moga. On seeing Hardeep Kaur, father of the complainant agreed to solemnize the marriage of the complainant with her. He arranged a sum of Rs 10,00,000/- from various sources and the marriage of Gurjant Singh (complainant) and Hardeep Kaur was solemnized on 17.10.1999 at Royal Marriage Palace, Ahmedgarh Mandi, District Ludhiana. The father of the complainant also gave 10 tolas gold ornaments at the time of the marriage. Besides, he incurred an expenditure of Rs 1,50,000/- on the marriage. After the marriage, Hardeep Kaur went to her parents’ house many times while taking the plea that she was interested to meet and see her parents, brothers and relatives. Hardeep Kaur lived with the complainant for 1-1/2 years and she left the house on the pretext that she was going to Canada and shall sponsor the complainant. However, after she went, she had never returned nor contacted the complainant. In October 2003, the complainant received an information that his wife had solemnized her marriage with Palwinder Singh Sidhu (petitioner-3) without disclosing her first marriage with the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant learnt from reliable sources that the accused were habitual offenders and had committed cheating and fraud with so many unmarried youth in the State of Punjab by alluring them to take them to Canada on the basis of marriage. On 1.11.2003, the complainant received a phone call at his house that his wife – Hardeep Kaur had come to Mohali to see her relatives. The complainant and his relatives despite their best efforts to trace out Hardeep Kaur, were unsuccessful. The complainant then learnt that 2 Criminal Misc – M 32705 of 2010 Hardeep Kaur had again married some other person and gone to Canada after getting a huge amount from the said bridegroom. It is alleged that the abovementioned accused persons were habitual offenders and had duped many young persons for crores of rupees. Therefore, the accused had committed the offences under Sections 420, 494/34 and 120-B IPC by hatching a conspiracy to dupe young persons to settle them in Canada. The money fraudulently received by the accused was in their possession. On the basis of the complaint, the FIR has been registered. Proclamation for appearance of Rajinder Singh (petitioner-1) was issued on 30.5.2005 (P2). Similarly, proclamation for appearance of Manjit Kaur (petitioner-2) was issued on 30.5.2005 (P3) and that of Palwinder Singh (petitioner-3) on 30.5.2005 (P4). They were declared Proclaimed Offenders vide order dated 1.8.2005 (P5). The Challan against the other accused namely Parminder Kaur, Hardeep Singh, Kulbir Kaur and Rajbir Singh was presented and the learned JMIC vide order dated 14.3.2008 (P7) acquitted them as Gurjant Singh – complainant did not support the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the statement (P6) of Gurjant Singh – complainant (PW1) recorded in the trial of the case whereby he has not supported the prosecution case. On the strength of the said statement (P6) and the order dated 14.3.2008 (P7), it is contended that the FIR (P1) against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. Besides, the order (P5) declaring them as POs is also liable to be quashed. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I find no merit in the same. It may be noticed that the statement (P6) of Gurjant Singh – complainant is recorded in the trial against the accused – Parminder Kaur, 3 Criminal Misc – M 32705 of 2010 Harchand Singh, Kulbir Kaur and Rajbir Singh. The complainant has stated that the aforesaid four accused never committed any fraud with him and he had not moved any application to take action against them to the Police. On the request of the Additional APP, Gurjant Singh was declared hostile and allowed to be cross-examined. He was cross-examined by the PP. In any case, the said accused namely Parminder Kaur, Harchand Singh, Kulbir Kaur and Rajbir Singh were acquitted. It may, however, be noticed that Gurjant Singh – complainant (PW1) in his statement (P6) does not state that the present petitioners also never committed any fraud with him or that he had not moved any application against them. Therefore, the present petitioners are liable to be tried in accordance with law. On the basis of the statement recorded in the trial of other accused, this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is not to quash the proceedings against the present petitioners. Even otherwise, this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, is not to embark upon an inquiry and conclude that on the basis of statement (P6) of Gurjant Singh (PW1) that the offences against the present petitioners are also not made out. This is more so for the reason that Gurjant Singh does not state that the present petitioners had not committed any fraud with him. Therefore, the petitioners are liable to be tried in accordance with law. Besides, the petitioners have been POs since 1.8.2005 (P5) and no reason has been mentioned as to why they were unable to appear before the trial Court or before the Police for a period of more than 5 years. In the circumstances, no ground is made out for quashing the FIR (P1) or the order (P5) declaring them as POs. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. However, keeping in view the fact that the co-accused have been acquitted and Gurjant Singh has 4 Criminal Misc – M 32705 of 2010 resiled from his previous statement qua the other accused, it would be just and expedient that in case the petitioners surrender before the Police within three days from the receipt of a copy of this order and file an application for regular bail before the concerned Court, their application for regular bail shall be considered by the concerned Court in accordance with law and till such consideration, they shall be admitted to interim bail to its satisfaction. The learned Court shall consider the application for regular bail on the basis of merit and uninfluenced by any observations made herein. 9.11.2010. ( S.S.SARON ) ASR JUDGE 5