Crl.Misc.No.M- 16313 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 19.5.2010 Crl.Misc.No.M- 16313 of 2008 Harminder Singh @ Sukhmander Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M- 29481 of 2008 Balwinder Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.H.S.Dhandi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. None for respondent No.2. **** SABINA, J. Vide this order CRM-M Nos. 16313 and 29481 of 2008 Crl.Misc.No.M- 16313 of 2008 2 will be disposed of as the matter in controversy is the same. Petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing complaint case No.33 of 5.4.2006 titled as Kamaljit Kaur vs. Rajinder Singh etc. dated 5.4.2006 (Annexure P-2) pending for 28.11.2008 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Muktsar which was filed by respondent No.2 under Sections 494, 148, 149, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and summoning order dated 24.10.2006 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar and the proceedings taken thereon. The case of the complainant, as per para Nos. 12 and 13 of the complaint, reads as under:- “12. That on 25.03.2006, the complainant and her father were coming back after watching the proceedings of the case Kamaljit Kaur Vs. Rajinder Singh etc. under Section 406, 498-A, IPC, 3-4 of Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar, in a bus to our village Chak Madarsa. In this bus, Beant Singh son of Balwinder Singh of Chak Madarsa was also travelling who was sitting by the side of father of complainant. They started talking inter se then asking of Beant Singh, my father told that we are coming from the court after pursuing the case going against her husband Rajinder Crl.Misc.No.M- 16313 of 2008 3 Singh. Then Beant Singh told that as per his knowledge, that there is no case pending with Rajinder Singh. Because since there was no child out of wedlock, you have agreed to second marriage. On further talking and on enquiry, Beant Singh was told that there was three cases with Rajinder Singh regarding marriage and dowry going on. Then Beant Singh further told that Rajinder Singh has got another marriage. On coming to know about this, my father asked details from Beant Singh and then he told that, “about three years back I and Nachhatar Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh, Sewak Singh son of Sohan Singh resident of Village Dhania Chak Madarsa had gone to purchase a tractor, information of which was given by Darshan Singh Chowkidar of Village Madarsa that tractor of Ghuman Singh resident of village Bhagsar is sellable, to see we have gone together. House of Ghuman Singh is just in front of house of Balwinder Singh accused of Village Bhagsar. At the house of Balwinder Singh, there was lot of gathering. Since we were known to Balwinder Singh family. We went to the house, where the above said accused and other 30/35 men and women were also present in the house, where all the accused were present and accused no.15,16 and 17 were also present. We asked what is today, then they said that today there is Crl.Misc.No.M- 16313 of 2008 4 marriage of Rajinder Singh with Kali Kaur. On this, I and Nachhatar Singh, Sewak Singh said that Rajinder Singh was already married to Kamaljit Kaur D/o Hakam Singh of our village. Then all the accused in one voice said since there was no child of Rajinder Singh and Kamaljit Kaur. Kamaljit Kaur and her family members have agreed to second marriage of Rajinder Singh. All the accused were already known to us and said that there will be now Anand Karj, you just sit and take some tea etc. Guru Granth Sahib was in the house of Balwinder Singh. We all sat before Guru Grant Sahib, we also sat there. Rajinder Singh who was bridegroom and Kali Kaur who was bride also sat before Guru Granth Sahib. Small speaker was also there. Before Guru Granth Sahib, Granthi took hukamnama and small Ardas was performed and boy, girl and their parents were asked to stand and Gupt Ardas was performed. After this, Balbir Singh handed over Pallu of Kali Kaur to Rajinder Singh and Ragi Singh pronounced four lawa from Guru Granth Sahib. After reading of lawa, Rajinder Singh and Kali Kaur made four Prikarma around Guru Granth Sahib. Thereafter, Ragi Singh have path of six Pauri of Anand Sahib and later on Granthi performed Ardas and we also joined the Ardas. Thereafter, Granthi took hukamnama and parsad was Crl.Misc.No.M- 16313 of 2008 5 distributed and thereafter Sagans were given to bridegroom and bride. I and Nachhatar Singh and Sewak Singh also gave Sagan of Rs.50-50 to both of them. Later on we took tea etc.” Beant Singh said that we are staying to fields which is 2 ½ -3 kms. away from the village so we could not get any information about the village activities. 13. That after coming to know about this, complainant's father thoroughly investigated that accused no.1 has made marriage to accused no.7 and they have two children now and they are residing in the city instead of village Ramgarh Chuga and they are suppressing their identity so that the complainant could not know about the marriage.” Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely involved in this case due to their relationship with the husband of the complainant. Earlier the complainant had filed a complaint under Sections 406, 498-A IPC and Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Petitioners Sukhdev Singh and Sukhmandar Singh filed CRM-M No.58523 of 2005 in this Court and the complaint qua the said petitioners was quashed vide order dated 2.4.2008. It was held that the complaint qua the petitioners was outcome of frustration as a divorce petition had been filed against respondent No.2 by her husband and hence, she had made exaggerations so as to implicate each and every Crl.Misc.No.M- 16313 of 2008 6 member of the family of her husband. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petitions deserve to be allowed. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal , , 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:- “The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No.2, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an Crl.Misc.No.M- 16313 of 2008 7 investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party. Crl.Misc.No.M- 16313 of 2008 8 (7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” In the present case, the petitioners have been involved on the basis of disclosure made to the complainant by Beant Singh. A perusal of para 12 of the complaint reveals that Beant Singh had allegedly told the complainant and her father that about three years back, he had attended the marriage of Rajinder Singh with Kali Kaur. At that time 30-35 men and women and accused were present there. The petitioners are relatives of Rajinder Singh. It appears that the petitioners have been involved in this case due to their relationship with Rajinder Singh, husband of respondent No.2. Rajinder Singh and his parents are facing the criminal proceedings. In the facts and Crl.Misc.No.M- 16313 of 2008 9 circumstances of the present case, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed. Complaint case No.33 of 5.4.2006 titled as Kamaljit Kaur vs. Rajinder Singh etc. dated 5.4.2006 (Annexure P-2) as well as all subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom including the summoning order dated 24.10.2006 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar, qua the petitioners, are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 19, 2010 anita